Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ALDRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to make further and better provision for the improvement health local government and finances of the Urban District of Aldridge; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BANGOR CORPORATION BILL,

"to authorise the Corporation of Bangor to discontinue the ferry between Bangor Pier and Llandegfan; to sell the ferry and pier undertakings; to make better provision for the health local government and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL,

"to provide for the carrying into effect of an agreement between the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Blackpool and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company; to provide for the removal of the Blackpool Central Railway Station to another site in the said borough; to empower the said Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses to execute street improvements and other works and to acquire lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL,

"to provide for the transfer to the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company of the undertakings of the Brockenhurst Gas Company and the Wareham District Gas Company Limited; to extend the limits for the supply of gas by the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company; to authorise them to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BRADFORD EXTENSION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the City and County Borough of Bradford and for purposes incidental thereto," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TRANSPORT) BILL,

"to confirm an agreement between the Brighton Corporation and the Brighton Hove and District Omnibus Company Limited for the provision and working in co-ordination of passenger road transport by the said corporation and the said company and the sharing of the revenues thereof and other matters; to confer powers upon the said corporation and company in connection with the running of trolley vehicles; to enact provisions with respect to the abandonment by the said corporation of their tramways and with respect to the railway known as 'Volk's Electric Railway'; to empower the said corporation to borrow money; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL,

"to authorise the Brixham Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CANTERBURY GAS AND WATER BILL.

"to provide for the conversion and amalgamation of the existing capital of the Canterbury Gas and Water Company; to authorise the company to raise additional money; to confer further powers upon the company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CLACTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to empower the Urban District Council of Clacton to construct a sea wall and other sea defence work; to provide for the levying of rates in respect of sea defence works; to make further and better provision for the improvement health and local government of the district of the Council; to confer further powers on the Council in regard to their water gas and electricity undertakings lands and other matters; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

COWES URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to confer further powers on the Cowes Urban District Council in regard to their water and gas undertakings; to make further and better provision for the health local government finance and improvement of the Urban District; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Crewe to construct street works and waterworks and to empower the said Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses to acquire lands for those and for other purposes; to confer further powers on the Corporation with reference to the supply of water and electricity; to make further provision for the improvement health local government and finance of the Borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL,

"to confer further powers upon the Derwent Valley Water Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL,

"to provide for alteration of the statutory requirements as to administration of public assistance in the County of Glamorgan; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

GREEN BELT (LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES) BILL,

"to make provision for the preservation from industrial or building development of areas of land in and around the administrative county of London; to confer powers for that purpose upon the London County Council and certain other authorities and persons; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL,

"to authorise the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Guildford to execute street works and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to empower the Corporation to purchase by agreement the Godalming Navigation and to confer

further powers upon them in regard to their water electricity and markets undertakings and the health local government and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL,

"to confirm the purchase by the Irwell Valley Water Board of certain land; to empower the Board to construct waterworks and collect impound take and use waters; to confer further powers upon the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL,

"to authorise the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board to execute works and exercise powers with respect to the drainage of their catchment area and for the prevention of floods therein; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to widen certain of their railways; to construct other works in connection with their undertaking and to acquire lands; to confer further powers on the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TUNNEL AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL,

"to empower the London County Council to make a new street street widenings and other works in connection with the southern approach to Wandsworth Bridge; and to construct a tunnel under the River Thames and street and other works in connection with Blackwall Tunnel; to empower the Council of the Metropolitan Borough and City of Westminster to make street improvements; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct


works and to acquire lands; to amend the Superannuation Scheme of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL,

"to empower the London Passenger Transport Board to provide certain services of trolley vehicles; to construct new works; to acquire lands; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands and the completion of certain works; to confer further powers on the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SEWERAGE) BILL,

"to make further provision for the disposal of sewage in the county of Middlesex and parts of adjoining counties; to confer further powers upon the Middlesex County Council and local authorities in the said counties; and for other purpose," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL,

"to authorise the Newcastle and Gates-head Water Company to construct additional works; to confer upon the Company further capital and borrowing powers; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

OSSETT CORPORATION BILL,

"to make further provision with respect to the undertakings of the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Ossett and with respect to the finance of the said borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

RADCLIFFE FARNWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL,

"to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Radcliffe and Little Lever Joint Gas Board to the Farnworth and Kearsley Gas Company and for the dissolution of the Board; to change the name of the said Company; to consolidate the capital of the said Company; to extend the limits for the supply of gas by and

to confer powers upon the said Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

REDCAR CORPORATION BILL,

"to confer further powers on the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Redcar in regard to their electricity gas and water undertakings and to make further and better provision for the improvement health local government and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

ROMFORD GAS BILL,

"to confer further powers on the Rom-ford Gas Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the Southern Railway Company to construct works and to acquire lands; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands; to make provision with reference to the rates rents tolls and charges which may be levied at the Southampton Docks of the Company; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SWINTON AND PENDLEBURY CORPORATION BILL,

"to confer further powers on the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Swinton and Pendlebury in regard to their electricity undertaking lands and other matters; to make further and better provision for the improvement health and local government of the borough; to transfer to the Corporation the powers of a Burial Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL,

"to authorise the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Workington to construct additional waterworks; to take water from the river Derwent; to construct an outfall pipe; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NUNEATON EXTENSION) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Nuneaton," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

Accounts ordered,
relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1938."—[Mr. Stanley.]

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST, 1936).

Copy ordered,
of Statement showing the Gross and Net total Cost of the Civil and Revenue Departments and the Navy, Army and Air Services, for the year ended the 31st day of March 1937."—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]

COST OF LIVING.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I ask leave to present to this honourable House a national petition, signed by 804,000 of His Majesty's subjects. The grievance set forth in this petition is that increases in the price of foodstuffs and other domestic necessities have raised the cost of living and that the burden of rising prices falls with especial hardship on family households receiving low wages, fixed pensions, unemployment or public assistance allowances, and other small salaries or fixed incomes. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that this honourable House will alleviate their grievance by removing or reducing such taxes, tariffs, and regulative trade restrictions, internal or external, as stand in the way of a free and open market for all consumers.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in Danzig; whether any reports have recently been received from the High Commissioner by the Committee of the

League of Nations dealing with the matter; and whether any international negotiations on the subject of Danzig are taking place?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Committee of Three (France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), appointed by the Council to follow the situation in Danzig, met in Geneva last week during the session of the Council, and heard a further report from the High Commissioner on the conditions in which he is called upon to carry out his functions and on the developments in the situation in Danzig since their last meeting in September The Committee reviewed the position in the light of the High Commissioner's explanations and approved the issue of a communiqué expressing their appreciation of the manner in which Dr. Burck-hardt was carrying out his task and stating that they did not consider it necessary to propose the inclusion of any question relating to Danzig in the agenda of the current session of the Council. The hon. Member will not expect me to add to this communiqué. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee is satisfied that all the inhabitants of Danzig enjoy their full constitutional liberties gauaranteed by the League?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member will read the communiqué, he will see that the Committee, after hearing the report of the High Commissioner on the development of the situation in Danzig since their last meeting, and after expressing their appreciation of the manner in which the High Commissioner had carried out his task, said that they did not consider that it was necessary for them to propose the inclusion of any question relating to Danzig in the agenda of the present session of the Council. Beyond that, I cannot answer.

Mr. Mander: Is it not notorious that the constitution has been completely wrecked by the Nazis, and are the Committee satisfied to let that go without saying a word?

Mr. Eden: If the representatives of France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom thought it best in the circumstances to issue this communiqué and not to add to it, the hon. Member will not expect me to do other.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the High Commissioner's report will not be published, and, if so, is this not the first occasion on which such a report from the High Commissioner has not been published?

Mr. Eden: I should like to have notice of the second part of that question. It is true that there is no intention to publish anything more than that communiqué, and that was the decision arrived at by the Committee of Three.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give with regard to the suspension of the service of the external loans of the Brazilian Government which were subscribed in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Eden: The Brazilian Minister of Finance has been authorised to enter into negotiations with the local representative of the bondholders as regards the resumption of payment on the debt, but I regret to state that despite repeated representations by His Majesty's Ambassador and by the local representative of the Council of Foreign Bondholders no offer for the resumption of payments has yet been made, nor has it yet been possible to fix any date for the opening of negotiations.

Mr. Kirkwood: I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary why this differentiation of treatment to the Brazilian Government, which is refusing to foot the bill, to meet the demands of the investors of this country? Why is it that the Government can to-day allow the Brazilian Government to get away, as they have got away for years, on those lines, and why is there different treatment from that meted out to Russia when she was being pressed along the same lines?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that it has been our experience with a number of countries, including Russia, that payments have not been made. That is not a satisfactory situation, and we do our best to remedy it in all cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (SCHOOL BOOKS).

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he

proposes to make representations to the Soviet Government concerning the untrue statements regarding Great Britain and the British Empire contained in books issued by the Soviet Government for use in the Russian schools this year?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The Soviet Government are already aware of the views of His Majesty's Government about propaganda; and I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to make special representations regarding school-books.

Miss Wilkinson: Might not representations be made, in reference to school books in this country, about the untrue statements that they make about Soviet Russia?

Mr. Eden: I said that it is not proposed to raise the matter.

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the Soviet Government concerning the untrue statements regarding the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics contained in books issued to schools under the Board of Education in England and Wales and the Scottish Office in Scotland?

Mr. Eden: I have received no representations in this sense.

Mr. Maclean: Does the Foreign Secretary intend to take the matter up with his colleagues, the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with regard to the books being presently issued?

Captain Ramsay: Will my right hon. Friend see that the same formula is applied to propaganda put out by the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee?

Mr. Eden: I hope that all concerned will take note of these two divergent points of view.

Mr. Petherick: Would not a more suitable person to raise this question be the Russian Ambassador rather than hon. Members opposite?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the situation in Egypt?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the British Government attempted in any way to interfere in connection with the recent changes?

Mr. Eden: Certainly. We are governed by the terms of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, by which we stand.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the possibility of concerted action between the United States of America and the States members of the League against the aggressor in the Far East?

Mr. Eden: The Council of the League is, I understand, to-day considering a resolution on the Far Eastern situation. Pending their decision, I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. Adams: Are not the terms of that resolution already published, and in view of it, is not the possibility of this concerted action not ruled out?

Mr. Eden: I do not know how the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question ran. I do not think the terms are published.

Mr. Adams: May I repeat the second part of my question? In view of the resolution of the Council passed this morning; is it not still possible to secure concerted action against the aggressor in the Far East?

Mr. Eden: Yes, it is certainly true that there will be nothing—I can assure my hon. Friend—in that resolution which will prevent co-operation between these Powers and other Powers.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement with regard to the security of the sterling loans of the Chinese Government which are a charge on the maritime Customs revenues of the treaty ports of China?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has under instructions impressed on the Japanese Government the extreme importance which His Majesty's

Government attach to the maintenance and protection of their interests in the Customs revenue, and, as I informed the House on 8th December, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs has assured him that due consideration will be given to the views of foreign Powers. As stated in the answer given to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) yesterday, the whole question of the Customs is still under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reply to his representations made to the Italian Government, through the Italian Ambassador, in respect of anti-British propaganda carried on from Italian sources?

Mr. Eden: The situation remains as described in the reply to the hon. Member on 20th December.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Foreign Secretary intend to wait indefinitely until the Italian Government think fit to reply to the representations?

Mr. Eden: It is not a question of waiting indefinitely. The hon. Member will recall that what I said on 20th December was:
In view of certain reports which had been received of Italian propaganda in the Near and Middle East, I recently informed the Italian Ambassador that His Majesty's Government were well aware of this propaganda and added that unless it could be brought to an end, it would be impossible to create the atmosphere necessary to the prosecution of successful conversations designed to improve our mutual relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1937; col. 1586, Vol. 330.]
That is still the position.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask whether, these representations having been made and no answer having been received, the propaganda is still being carried on?

Mr. Eden: The position remains exactly as stated there.

Mr. Henderson: The propaganda is still being carried on?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to foreign anti-British broadcasting and the steps taken by the Government to broadcast the truth?

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the question, it is well known that certain Governments regard wireless broadcasting as an instrument of propaganda and control the material broadcast. Inevitably, in so far as the general standpoint of such Governments or their policy in regard to a particular matter may be opposed to the standpoint or policy adopted by this country, the material broadcast from such countries could be described as anti-British. As regards the second part of the question, the House will be aware that broadcasting in this country is in the hands of the British Broadcasting Corporation set up by Royal Charter. I understand that the news bulletins broadcast by the Corporation are compiled from the reports of the British telegraph agencies, and in addition the facilities existing in Government Departments for consultation by the Press are available to the Corporation. The House will also be aware of the decision recently taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast in certain foreign languages.

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this new service, obviously set up at the will of the British Government, is being effective in getting the truth right into the ears of the people in the Middle East?

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Member can be assured that we are aware of the importance of putting the British point of view to the world, and steps are being taken in that direction.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider laying a White Paper containing examples of the kind of propaganda put out by other Governments, so that the public may judge for itself on authoritative information?

Mr. Eden: I am quite prepared to consider that suggestion.

Mr. Lawson: Are the Government themselves considering this question as a matter with which it will be necessary to deal over and above what the British Broadcasting Corporation does? Is the

right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation can give only a fraction of the time that foreign Governments give to propaganda?

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is such fierce indignation against Soviet propaganda directed against capitalism and such a placid attitude with regard to anti-British propaganda?

Mr. Mander: (for Mr. R. Acland) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the broadcasting of propaganda from Italian broadcasting stations has ceased or abated in the last six weeks; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government has in the last six weeks taken any action or now proposes any action to bring it to an end?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the full statement made by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary on the Adjournment on 23rd December.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SECRETARIAT).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any German, Japanese, or Italian subjects still in the employ of the Secretariat of the League of Nations; and, if so, will he give the numbers of each nationality still so employed?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. According to the Official Journal of the League of Nations of October, 1937, there were 11 Germans, 31 Italians and three Japanese employed in an official capacity by the Secretariat. Of these I understand that five Italians have since resigned and have left the Secretariat, and the resignation of five further Italians will take effect in six months time.

Mr. Thurtle: In view of the fact that neither Germany nor Italy is any longer a member of the League, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ask for the resignation of the Italian and German members of the staff?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that in any event that would be a matter for me. The hon. Member will bear in mind that members of the Secretariat are not representatives of their Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAKE TSANA.

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the possibility of interference with the upper waters of the Nile caused by the operations on Lake Tsana?

Mr. Eden: I am unaware of any operations having taken place on Lake Tsana which would interfere with the upper waters of the Nile.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Spain?

Mr. Eden: In spite of unfavourable weather conditions, offensive operations on a large scale began shortly before Christmas in the Province of Teruel and have not yet been suspended. In recent weeks raids by insurgent bombing aeroplanes have greatly increased in intensity and have inevitably led to retaliatory action. His Majesty's Government view with profound concern this intensification of aerial bombardment, which has resulted in considerable loss of life and the infliction of cruel injuries among the civil population, and they are urgently considering what steps they can take to bring about some alleviation of these sufferings. I need hardly add that they would at all times be ready to join in any international endeavour to this end.
In the meanwhile I think the House would like to have some information with regard to the negotiations which have lately been taking place with a view to the exchange on a large scale of prisoners and other persons detained by one or other side. After the collapse of the resistance of the Spanish Government forces in North West Spain in October last, the Spanish Ambassador inquired whether His Majesty's Government would be prepared to approach the Insurgent authorities with a view to concluding an agreement whereby such elements of the civil population in the Northern area as desired to leave would be exchanged for certain categories of prisoners and other persons detained by the Spanish Government. The Ambassador was informed that, if he obtained definite proposals on this subject from his Government, His

Majesty's Government would be glad to communicate them to the Insurgent authorities and to urge the latter to give them favourable consideration. This was done.
Towards the end of November the Insurgent authorities replied by submitting counter-proposals for a general exchange of prisoners and hostages, to include military and political prisoners, refugees in the foreign missions and other persons not under arrest but merely detained, and suggested the appointment of a British arbitrator for the purpose of preparing and carrying out the exchanges. These counter-proposals were in their turn submitted to the Spanish Ambassador, who replied on 13th January that they were agreeable in principle to his Government, provided that the exchanges applied to the whole of Spain and not merely to the northern area, and that they were carried out on the basis of strict reciprocity. The British Agent at Salamanca has accordingly now been instructed to obtain confirmation from the Insurgent authorities that the proposals for a general exchange set out in their Note and in the Spanish Government's reply thereto are acceptable as a basis for further negotiation, in which case His Majesty's Government would at once proceed to appoint an arbitrator for this purpose.
At the same time long and difficult negotiations have been taking place for the exchange of 200 Basque prisoners for an equivalent number of persons held prisoner by the Spanish Government. The exchange of the first batch of 41 was carried out on 20th January, thanks to the untiring efforts of His Majesty's representatives at Barcelona and Hendaye and to the International Red Cross delegate at Barcelona, under whose auspices the negotiations have been carried out.

Mr. Grenfell: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the very full information he has given to the House on various matters, may I ask him whether in the declaration that His Majesty's Government would welcome co-operation with other countries to bring about the cessation of bombing of towns and of the innocent people in them, it would not be appropriate to intimate to the Non-intervention Committee, an international body already in existence, that there is strong ground to assume that these attacks have


been caused by nations signatory to the Pact of Non-intervention; and whether that is not a base on which to begin in this matter? Has he found that these wanton attacks on innocent people are due to nations who have pledged themselves not to intervene, and should not special notice be taken of it?

Mr. Eden: I have had all aspects of this question under consideration, and on reflection I think that in the first instance I would prefer to take the first step in another way, which obviously I would rather not indicate to the House at the moment until I see the result of these endeavours. Should they not be successful, my mind is not closed to other methods of approach.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend give any information with regard to the additional 50,000 Italian troops which are said to be ready to proceed to Spain? Does he propose to initiate any international action to prevent their arriving?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will see from his own question that it is impossible for me to have information about 50,000 troops in Italy said to be going to Spain.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that that it is in all sections of the Press, do the British Government, with all their sources of information, know nothing about it?

Mr. Eden: I have no information which would substantiate the suggestion that numbers of troops are in Italy ready to go to Spain. In the circumstances the House will recognise that in any event that is hardly a subject on which I could pronounce.

Mr. Mander: Will the Foreign Secretary make inquiries?

Sir Arthur Salter: Could the right hon. Gentleman say, in connection with the exchange of prisoners, whether it is possible to take any precautions regarding the military prisoners to prevent their becoming combatants again? Otherwise, the result might merely be the prolongation of the war without any reduction of human suffering?

Mr. Eden: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. There are plenty of difficulties in this matter and I would prefer, if I might, to deal with them confidentially, and not publicly.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does not the incident quoted by my right hon. Friend clearly show the value and advantages of having a British agent in Nationalist Spain?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to British diplomatic and consular agents in Italy to make reports concerning any troop movements which have a bearing on this matter?

Mr. Eden: Our diplomatic and consular agents everywhere have, as the hon. Gentleman must know, instructions as to what they are to report in the ordinary course of their duties.

Mr. Kirkwood: If it is the case that there are 50,000 troops in Italy ready to. go to Spain, what action are the Government prepared to take to prevent them from getting there?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

COMBINED STAFF TRAINING.

Mr. Petherick: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now completed his inquiries as to why over a quarter of the officers of the Royal Navy who have been posted to the Imperial Defence College are retired or unemployed, as compared with none unemployed, and only one in 13 and one in 19, respectively, unemployed in the Army and the Royal Air Force; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that in future the Admiralty pay adequate attention to combined staff training?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have inquired very carefully into this matter, and I have satisfied myself that there is no ground for thinking that there is any tendency in the Admiralty to underrate the importance of combined staff training or the value of the instruction given at the Imperial Defence College. According to the most recent figures 17 per cent. of the Naval Officers who have passed through the College in the last 10 years are not in active employment. This percentage is higher than those in the other Services, which may be fortuitous, or may be due to the fact that while due weight should be, and is, given to other considerations, the final test for promotion to Flag rank on the active list must be the qualities shown by an officer when holding a responsible command at sea.

APPOINTMENTS (STAFF TRAINING).

Mr. Petherick: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the selection of naval officers for the higher command and for staff appointments, any preference over sea-time and seniority is given to those who have had staff training?

Mr. Cooper: In selecting officers for high command and for staff appointments all their qualifications are taken into account including, of course, any staff training they may have had and the aptitude they may have shown for this particular work.

CHINA STATION.

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the naval units at present maintained on the China station; and comparable figures for the corresponding date 12 months ago?

Mr. Cooper: I would refer the hon. Member to the relevant issues of the Navy List, copies of which are in the Library.

Mr. Day: Are the auxiliary ships on this station also shown in that list?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does the list in the Library indicate the British members of the naval units who have been killed by Japanese aggressors out there?

NAMING OF SHIPS.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what new ships of the Royal Navy have been named after British coastal towns during each of the past two years; and whether, in order to stimulate national interest, he proposes to name any new ships of the Royal Navy after British coastal towns?

Mr. Cooper: Of the vessels of the 1936 and 1937 New Construction Programmes three will bear the names of coastal towns in the United Kingdom. As regards vessels of future programmes, I would refer my hon. Friend to the last part of the answer which I gave him on 3rd November.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now considered the memorial prepared in Ceylon by a committee, including a

former Supreme Court Judge, a former Solicitor-General, the President of the European Association, the leader of the Bar, and two former Ministers, asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the constitution of Ceylon; and whether he has any statement to make?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have nothing to add to the replies given to my hon. Friend and others on 9th and 13th December.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make as to the present position in Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to my reply of yesterday to the questions of the hon. Members for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) and Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the Government's intentions with regard to the future system of administration in Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to the statement of the intentions of His Majesty's Government, in the form of a despatch to the High Commissioner for Palestine dated 23rd December, 1937, which has recently been published as Command Paper No. 5634.

Mr. Mander: Is it proposed to permit Jewish immigration on a larger scale, in view of the considerable period that must lie ahead before anything can be done?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is a matter which will come up for consideration by the Government after 31st March next, and no decision has yet been reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSJORDAN (FRONTIER FORCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date paid by Great Britain under Article 11 of the treaty between Great Britain and the Amir of Transjordan for the purpose of keeping British forces on


the Transjordan frontier; the amounts, separately, which are made up for the Transjordan frontier force grant-in-aid; and the capital cost of works in Transjordan?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In accordance with the terms of Article 12 of the Agreement of 1928 between His Majesty and the Amir of Transjordan, the following payments were made by His Majesty's Government during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1937, in respect of the proportion of local defence expenditure chargeable, under Article 11 of the Agreement, on the revenues of Transjordan:

Transjordan Frontier Force.
£P.


Recurrent Expenditure
134,442


Capital Expenditure
5,242


Royal Air Force.


Recurrent Expenditure
49,000


Capital Expenditure
1,466

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether he expects that the excess cost of this force will be borne by the Transjordan revenues?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, I cannot possibly say.

Mr. Day: Will the capital costs be borne by them?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The agreement on that matter still stands.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD.

Captain A. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the situation in Trinidad; whether any changes are contemplated in the local government; and whether any regular troops will be stationed there in the future?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have received no information from the Government of Trinidad since the report of the Commission was published yesterday, but up till then the situation was quiet. With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member will now be aware that the appointment of a new Governor was recently announced in the Press, consequent upon the resignation of Sir Murchison Fletcher on grounds of ill-health. It has also been decided to appoint an Industrial Adviser to the

Government of Trinidad and Tobago. The question whether the presence of a permanent garrison in Trinidad is justified in the general interests of Imperial defence is being examined.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is there any validity in the statement published today that further riots have broken out in Trinidad following the publication of the report?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no confirmation of that report, which I have seen in only one paper.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be a logical outcome of the report that such a state of things should arise?

Mr. Davidson: Has the industrial adviser any military training?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, he is one of the staff of the Ministry of Labour here, and he is shortly sailing for Trinidad.

Mr. Riley: Do the Government propose to provide a day for the discussion of this report?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is not a matter for me to decide.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Government see that the official concerned does not draw his unemployment pay for six weeks?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: In view of the opinions expressed in this House last night, which show that several Members do not seem to have been correctly informed on this matter, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would somewhat clear the air if there was a debate in the near future on the Commission's report?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The question of the allocation of the time of the House is not a matter for me but for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Maxton: (for Mr. McGovern) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the sugar companies in Trinidad who have benefited from the sugar subsidy; the amount of benefit in each case; and what proportion of this benefit has been passed on in increased wages over the same period in each case?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: All individuals and companies who grow or crush sugar-cane


in Trinidad, as in all other Colonies, benefit by the preference on sugar in the United Kingdom and Canada, to which I assume the hon. Member is referring. The extent to which they benefit is determined by the scale of their operations. It is impossible to state the amounts involved and the use to which they have been put.

Mr. Maxton: I imagine that my hon. Friend wants something different from the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of some of the principal beneficiaries?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, I do not think I could possibly do so. The custom in Trinidad is for growers to grow the cane on their own holdings and take it to various factories, and it is impossible to give the names of individuals.

Mr. Maxton: May I take it that there are no distinguished British capitalists who are getting a share of this particular type of "swag"?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There are some British companies which crush cane in Trinidad. Notably, a large concern operating there is Tate and Lyle.

Mr. Riley: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence of any increase of wages having taken place since the preference has been in force?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would like notice as regards the amount; there certainly have been increases.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AIRPORT (FAIRLOP).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements have now been made for the establishment of an airport for London at Fairlop, Essex; and what transport facilities are available, or will be made available, in that connection?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I understand that negotiations by the City of London authorities for the establishment of an airport at Fairlop are still proceeding, but are not yet complete. The question of communications is one for the City of London authorities, and I am informed that they have this matter under consideration.

Mr. Lyons: Is it not a fact that these negotiations have lasted now for a period of years, and is there any likelihood that a conclusion will be reached on this pressing matter within a reasonable time?

Mr. Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Negotiations have been proceeding for a long time. They are a matter for the City of London, the Ilford Borough Council and the Commissioners of Crown Lands. I understand that progress has been made.

Mr. Lyons: Have any representations been made to these bodies as to the urgency of this matter, or are we to hear year after year that negotiations are still in progress?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think the needs of the case are particularly appreciated by the three bodies concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR CAR INSURANCE.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent hardships caused to members of the public through non-insured motorists being unable to pay damages awarded against them by a court order arising from an accident and/or through an insurance company repudiating liability on account of a misrepresentation on the proposal form by the assured; and whether he will consider appointing a departmental committee to advise him in what manner the present legislation can be strengthened and amended in order to safeguard the public in these circumstances?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): The recommendations on this subject of the recent Committee on Compulsory Insurance are at present under consideration by the Departments concerned.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that where a person has made a false statement upon an application for insurance there shall be no liability on the insurance company?

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to state an approximate date when the electrification of the London and North


Eastern Railway Company's line to Barnet, and its linking up with the tube system, will be completed?

Mr. Burgin: The company expect that electrified services will be running between High Barnet and the City via the High-gate Tube by the summer of 1939, and hope that such services may be running between East Finchley and the West End: and City respectively some months earlier. They also expect that electrified services will be in operation between High Barnet and Finsbury Park early in 1940.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange with the Southern Railway Company that no extension of electrification will take place in rural areas before the undertaking they have given him as to fencing and protection has been implemented?

Mr. Burgin: The Southern Railway Company inform me that their programme of works for 1938 provides for the erection of over 50 miles of the improved types of fencing. This covers all places where trespassing has been reported as being prevalent or likely to occur, both in the areas already electrified and those in process of being electrified.

Brigadier-General Brown: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Southern Railway that they should notify people when they are proposing to electrify a line, and might I recall the accident which happened last Monday owing to the fact that no one in the neighbourhood knew that the line was electrified?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, I will consider that suggestion.

TRUNK ROADS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding trunk-road development in Scotland generally and in the County of Linlithgow in particular; and whether in such development he will take into account the eventual erection of a road-bridge over the Forth at Queensfeny?

Mr. Burgin: A survey is being made of all trunk roads in Scotland in order to determine what works are necessary and the priority of their execution. The hon. Member may be assured that all

relevant factors will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alternative recently suggested in the County of Linlithgow that the trunk road should go by way of the coast, and is that one of the points which are under consideration?

Mr. Burgin: If it has been brought to my notice it is certainly one of the matters under consideration.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport what further proposals he has to make with a view to reducing the great number of accidents still occurring daily on the roads?

Mr. Burgin: The problem of the best manner in which to reduce the number of accidents on the roads is one which is constantly before me. At the moment I am concentrating upon steady and continuous attack upon the problem from every known angle rather than pinning my hopes to the discovery of some novel panacea. I am always glad to receive suggestions.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider regulating the movements of pedestrians on the roadways in the same way as the movements of vehicles are already regulated by law?

Mr. Burgin: That matter has not escaped my attention. I am hoping to have very shortly a report from an advisory committee dealing with the whole question of pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Leach: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consent to look into the question whether it is better to limit the horse power of engines and their speed capacity?

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that during the month of October, 1937, there were three fatal accidents within the county borough of West Ham, and road accidents which occasioned injury to 108 persons during the same period; and whether, therefore, he will take steps, in consultation with the local authority, to expedite highways improvements?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I will gladly consider any proposals for highway improvements which the local authority may think desirable.

Mr. Groves: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that schemes of road improvements sanctioned and started years ago are still incomplete, and that bottlenecks still prevail, causing danger to the lives of the public; and will he do something, in collaboration with the local authority, to expedite these improvements?

Mr. Burgin: In view of the information that has been given, I will communicate with the highway authority.

PROPOSED SEVERN BRIDGE.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether, having received a deputation from each of the two groups for and against the construction of a bridge over the Severn River, he intends to make a statement in addition to the reply he made to each of the deputations; and, if so, when?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am at present considering the representations made to me by the promoters and the opponents of the proposed Severn Bridge. I will make a statement on this matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when that statement may be expected?

Mr. Burgin: It is a matter of considerable importance, and it is a little difficult to prophesy as to time, but I am aware of the importance of the matter, and there will be no undue delay.

Mr. Mathers: Will a statement be made also on the subject of the proposed Forth road bridge?

AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL.

Mr. Maxton: (for Mr. McGovern) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make inquiries regarding the use of a device on the Great Western Railway which prevents a train passing a signal at danger; and will he urge or compel installation on other railways?

Mr. Burgin: I am fully informed about the system of automatic train control which is installed throughout the greater part of the running lines of the Great Western Railway and operates in connection with the distant signal. Trials have been in progress for some time on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway with an alternative system which performs similar functions. This company,

and the London and North Eastern and Southern Railway Companies, have felt it necessary to await the outcome of these experiments before adopting either system. While I have no power to compel the use of automatic train control equipment, I am anxious to encourage its wider use with due regard to the reliability of the apparatus.

Mr. Maxton: Is it not a fact that the London Midland and Scottish, the London and North Eastern and the Southern Railways have a much worse accident rate than the Great Western?

Mr. Burgin: I would not like to express an opinion on the relative accident levels without a question being put on the Paper.

FACTORY CONSTRUCTION, MONMOUTHSHIRE (LABOUR).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will arrange for a provision to be inserted in the contract for the construction of the shell-filling factory near Usk, Monmouth-shire, that the men to be employed shall be recruited at the Employment Exchanges nearest to the site of the works?

Mr. Cross (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. It is not practicable to insist that the contractor shall be debarred from engaging labour otherwise than through the Employment Exchange system. It will be a condition of the contract, however, that the contractor shall notify to the appropriate Employment Exchange all vacancies for labour required on the works, with the object of affording an opportunity of employment to any suitably qualified men available in the surrounding district.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it possible to insert into the terms of the contract that local labour only shall be employed, and may I add that there are 5,000 unemployed workers in this area?

Mr. Cross: I think the answer which I have given meets the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact in works of a similar kind in South Wales that while the labour employed has been drawn from local Employment Exchanges, people outside have oftentimes


been brought m, registered at the local exchange and then employed on the works, excluding local labour?

Mr. Cross: I will convey the question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Grenfell: Will he also convey to his right hon. Friend that there is very great inconvenience in bringing people to rural areas where there is no lodging accommodation, while people living in the areas cannot get employment?

Mr. Cross: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE, MAYFORD (BURGLARY).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Postmaster-General how much money was stolen from the Mayford, Woking, sub-post office on Wednesday, 22nd December; and whether there were one or more officials in the office at the time?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): The amount of official money stolen from the post office was 10s. The premises were occupied by the sub-postmaster and his wife when the office was burgled.

Mr. Davidson: Is that one of the evils of nationalisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

FOOD (DEFENCE PLANS) DEPARTMENT.

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade upon what date the Food (Defence Plans) Department was set up; and how many persons are now being employed in that Department?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to make some statement regarding the progress made by the Food (Defence Plans) Department; and what the main position is in this matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The Food (Defence Plans) Department was established in December, 1936. Its headquarters staff consists at the present time of 80 persons in all, including messengers, typists and clerks. In addition, a divisional food organisation has recently been set up throughout Great

Britain. The divisional food officers and their assistants are giving part-time service on a voluntary basis. It is hoped to publish shortly a report on the work of the Department for the year ended 31st December last.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence why this question was transferred to the Board of Trade, and why he did not give me any notification of the transfer? Is it that he does not like to answer my questions?

FOOD STORAGE.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can now make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to food storage to meet any international emergency in which the United Kingdom might become involved?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I understand this question is to be discussed on a motion by the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Parker) next Wednesday.

Mr. Adams: Will my right hon. Friend remember that he is not asked to disclose details of his secrets in this matter, and can he now assure us that something is being actively done?

Sir T. Inskip: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the Debate next Wednesday.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be food to distribute, as we cannot eat bombs?

TURNHOUSE AND DONIBRISTLE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whether he is aware of the apprehension caused by the removal of Royal Air Force units from Turnhouse and Donibristle stations; and whether he is satisfied that the defence of the area involved is not thereby affected detrimentally?

Sir T. Inskip: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to a similar question which was given on my behalf on 20th December, 1937, by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I should perhaps point out that the squadrons being moved from Turnhouse and Donibristle are bomber squadrons, and were never intended for the purposes of direct defence.

Mr. Mathers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply which was given did not allay the apprehension in the area? May we understand that, in establishing defence air services in the area, Turnhouse and Donibristle will be used for those defence services, and that the people whose services are being dispensed with will be employed?

Sir T. Inskip: The area in which Turn-house and Donibristle are is, of course, included in the general defences of the whole country.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the replies which the right hon. Gentleman has given me, will he take into consideration the provision of some information so that the reliable newspapers in the area will be able to allay the public apprehension—not necessarily giving details, but giving such information as can be used discreetly for the reassurance of public opinion?

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL APPEALS.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider, in the interests of justice, where an appeal is pending and the convicted person is detained in custody, so altering the law that sentence shall always run from the date of the original conviction?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind cases where the appeal is to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal Act specifically provides that the time spent in custody by the appellant shall not count as part of his sentence unless the court otherwise directs, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be in the interests of justice to amend the law in the sense suggested.

Mr. Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the effect of the present rule is to increase the period of detention where an appeal is unsuccessful, and that the rule is therefore in effect a clog upon the right of appeal?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has to remember that cases coming before courts where appeals may arise to the Court of Criminal Appeal have already been judged by a judge and jury, and that the

provision of the Act was designed to discourage frivolous appeals. In any case, the court has the right to direct when sentences shall begin.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOAN CLUBS.

Captain A. Evans: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the recurrence of slate and loan depredations at the post-Christmas season; whether he can give the number of prosecutions and suicides; and whether he will consider the need for a change in the law governing the operation of these organisations?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks in the second part is not available, but I am informed that, so far as London is concerned, the number of complaints of defalcations in connection with slate, loan and benefit clubs received by the Metropolitan Police in 1937 was 33, and that in 30 of these cases there were prosecutions. The Metropolitan Police have no knowledge of any suicides directly due to these offences. The question of taking statutory power to control such clubs, which has often been considered, presents considerable difficulties.

Captain Evans: With a view to encouraging the increased purchase of National Saving Certificates by these loan clubs, will the Treasury or the Home Office be prepared to advise clubs on suitable and adequate safeguards?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's point. There is, however, no difficulty in framing satisfactory rules for those clubs who will apply them. The difficulty as regards legislation is to provide something that would not be unduly repressive in regulating the large number of clubs which exist.

Captain Evans: Will the Financial Secretary be kind enough to bear in mind the remarks that are made from time to time by magistrates who have to deal with this question?

Mr. Thurtle: Do the figures quoted for London include what are known as "diddlum" clubs?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD AND COAL (RETAIL PRICES).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the percentage in crease as compared with 1914 in the retail price of food and coal for domestic use, respectively, on 1st January, 1938?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): On 1st January, 1938, the official cost-of-living index numbers showed an increase, as compared with July, 1914, of 45 per cent. in retail prices of food, and between 95 and 100 per cent. in retail prices of coal for domestic use.

Mr. Williams: Having regard to the fact that coal has increased in price very much more than foodstuffs, will the Financial Secretary call the attention of the Secretary for Mines to the matter, in view of forthcoming legislation?

Mr. Grenfell: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in view of the information supplied to the hon. Member, cause inquiries to be made as to why the price of coal has gone up so much?

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women, and young persons registered as employed in the cotton trade in January, 1938, also the number of workpeople unemployed from the cotton trade in January, 1938?

Mr. Butler: Statistics for January are not yet available. If the hon. Member will repeat his question on this day week, I shall be able to give him the particulars he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour whether any of the juvenile advisory committees have presented re ports as to which work should be considered as beneficial employment for boys and girls?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour when the reports of the Juvenile Advisory Councils will be published as showing the work done in 1937?

Mr. Butler: The reports of the National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment, which my right hon. Friend received in 1937, have already been published, and he hopes to receive and to publish, shortly, the Annual Report of the London Regional Advisory Council. The work of local committees will be reviewed in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Kelly: When are we likely to have the reports of the London Juvenile Advisory Council and the other councils for the year 1937?

Mr. Butler: The first will be published shortly, and the others in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBEL ACTIONS (PAYMENT OF DAMAGES).

Mr. Maxton: (for Mr. McGovern) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the many libels on public men made by the British Union of Fascists in its paper "Action" and other publications, and that when court action is taken and favourable decisions given against this organisation or paper the procedure is to go bankrupt in order to prevent the law from being carried out; and will he take steps to amend the law with a view to putting an end to such practices?

Captain Wallace: I am aware that there have been certain libel actions against companies connected with the British Union of Fascists; but the only case known to the Board of Trade in which the company concerned has gone into liquidation is that of British Union of Fascist Publications, Limited, against which damages were awarded in November, 1936. In that case, however, the petition for a winding-up order was made by the successful plaintiffs themselves, and not by the company. I am aware of no amendment of the law which would ensure that a successful plaintiff in a similar case would obtain payment in full of damages awarded to him by the Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "ENDYMION" (TORPEDOING).

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take relative to the sinking of the "Endymion"?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are deeply concerned at the attack on the Steamship "Endymion," which was an ordinary British commercial vessel, flying the British flag, lawfully engaged in sailing the high seas, and upon which no attack could in any circumstances be justified. In view of this revival of piracy, they have taken steps to arrange for a meeting with the representatives of the French and Italian Governments, as being the two Powers jointly concerned with them in carrying out the naval patrols in the Mediterranean, under the terms of the Nyon Agreement and the further Agreement concluded at Paris on 30th September last. This meeting will take place at the Foreign Office this afternoon. The House will appreciate that in the meanwhile it will not be possible for me to give details of any proposals which His Majesty's Government may think it desirable to put forward at that meeting with a view to preventing a recurrence of further incidents of this kind. Steps are also being taken to obtain a full report of events in relation to the sinking of the Steamship "Endymion." When this report is received, they will then consider the action to be taken with the authorities responsible for this entirely unwarranted attack upon a British merchant ship.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Government consider, with a view to preventing these outrages, notifying General Franco that any further outrages on British subjects will be met by the confiscation of one or more of his ships?

Mr. Kirkwood: Take the lot from him.

Mr. Eden: I have told the House that His Majesty's Government have certain proposals to make in this connection to two foreign Powers this afternoon, and I think the House would prefer that I make no further statement.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in advance of general agreement with the other Powers concerned in the Nyon patrol, the Government will take effective steps to give protection to British ships on the high seas off the coast of Spain?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The steps for strengthening the patrol have already been taken.

Mr. A. Henderson: Have definite instructions been given to British naval

commanders in the Mediterranean to counter-attack, and, if possible, destroy, any pirate submarine, as provided for in the Nyon Agreement?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. That is part of the Agreement, and they have instructions to carry out the Agreement.

Mr. Henderson: Have the instructions been given?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Will the Foreign Secretary ascertain, for the information of the House and the public, whether it is true that extra destroyers and submarines have been supplied by the Italian Government to the Franco authority?

Mr. Eden: That has nothing to do with the immediate question before the House. I have to deal with a particular incident connected with a submarine.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the cynical humour of the situation, in which we are going to co-operate with the Italian Government with a view to sinking submarines which everybody knows they have supplied to Franco?

Mr. Mander: Will the pirates be represented at the Conference this afternoon?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that when the civil war began there were none of these submarines in the possession of General Franco, that they were all in the possession of the Spanish Government, and that none have passed since, so that they must have come from another Power?

Mr. Speaker: That is going beyond the question.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

BRITISH NEWS ABROAD.

Mr. Lees-Jones: I beg to give notice that this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Supply of British News Abroad, and move a Resolution.

PENSIONS DISABILITIES OF CERTAIN UNMARRIED WOMEN.

Mr. Leach: I beg to give notice that this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Pensions Disabilities of Certain Unmarried Women, and move a Resolution.

TENDENCIES IN CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Denman: I beg to give notice that this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Certain Tendencies in Current Constitutional Development, and move a Resolution.

PROPAGANDA AND COUNTER-PROPAGANDA ABROAD.

Mr. Crossley: I beg to give notice that this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Propaganda and Counter-Propaganda Abroad, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and by local authorities in respect of housing accommodation provided for the working classes, and with respect to arrangements between local authorities and other persons for the provision of housing accommodation; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Mr. W. S. Morrison, The Solicitor-General, and Mr. Bernays; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined by the said Lords.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Henry Morris-Jones; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Henry Fildes.

Report to lie upon the Table.

IMPORTATIONS FROM OVERSEAS.

3.46 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that in negotiations for trade agreements with the Dominions and with foreign countries His Majesty's Government, while doing everything possible to assist the export trade and promote the prosperity of the country as a whole, should have especial regard to the effect upon particular industries in this country of imports from countries with low standards of wages, especially where the industries in question are concentrated in a limited area in the United Kingdom; and urges that the need for safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry against the competition of Indian jute goods should be placed in the forefront of the resumed negotiations with the Government of India.
I endeavoured when announcing this Motion yesterday to give notice to bring it forward this day week, but the genial persistence of hon. Members on both sides of the House compelled me to put it forward to-day. I take that as an indication of general support for such a Motion. Indeed, I cannot doubt that were it put forward in the form of a petition we should have had no difficulty in collecting a number of signatures, even more impressive than that which was appended to the petition presented to the House an hour ago, for the matter is one which is deeply exercising the minds of a very large body of industrialists and of workpeople. I count myself fortunate in having the opportunity to put forward this Motion, which appeared on the Order Paper on 10th November in the name of my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), but was not discussed owing to the lamented death of a former Prime Minister, to whom we owe, more perhaps than to any other single man, the fact that a tariff policy was introduced into this country in 1931. I have had little time to study the question, and I must ask the indulgence of the House if I rely more than usual on notes. May I begin with a brief declaration of faith?
I believe that self-sufficiency, more particularly in the matter of manufactured articles, is a good thing, and that we should seek to maintain, within our own borders, as much as possible of the manufacturing activity necessary to meet our own needs. I want to see tariffs as high as is necessary to equalise the difference between our own standard of living and that of potential importers,

but not so high as to exclude a fair element of competition. Individual freedom, which it is our duty in this House to maintain, and which we so greatly prize, depends largely on the ability of every man and woman, in whatever walk of life, to choose freely by what type of employment they will earn their living, and, in particular, on what types of skilled employment are open to them. We are rightly proud that in this country, as perhaps in no other, there is a wide choice of skilled occupation open to every man and woman. If we regard that freedom as worth having, we must foster it by a deliberate tariff policy.
Economics is in the ultimate resort a branch of aesthetics not merely a matter of cash. We can have what we like provided we want it sufficiently and are willing to go without other things. Our social services cost us £500,000,000 a year. I want to see them extended, developed and improved, but it is impossible to do that unless we protect ourselves against the uncontrolled, and sometimes catastrophic, importation of goods from countries overseas, whether British or foreign, with lower standards of social obligation, which is not quite the same thing as a lower standard of living. Our social services assume a fair regularity of employment and short periods of unemployment. There is a popular song in Germany, which, being translated, reads:
Our land and homes our children shall inherit,
We by our work their gratitude shall merit.
We must look beyond the present. Our children have a greater claim upon us than our contemporaries. We have but a few years to live; they have to carry the burden in the future. We should not seek an extra pair of boots, an extra garment or an extra meal for ourselves by a policy which will prejudice the future of our children. Our tariff policy, framed in 1931, has now been in force for six years. Every depression that has hit this country has originated abroad and one wave after another has struck us. We have been, to a large extent, immune, and we have recovered from that depression mainly because of the tariff wall—not anything like as strong as many of us would wish—which we then erected. We ought to have the power to insulate ourselves, as far as is possible, from hurricanes originating


abroad—the consequences of political incapacity or commercial greed, and particularly the latter—in other countries.
The tariff policy of 1931 has been an immense success. It is not a high tariff. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), addressing this House on 22nd December, 1937, suggested that it was higher than that of most foreign countries, and averaged no less than 26.9 per cent. He was quoting figures—not his own—but they misled him. They consisted of a comparison of total Customs revenue relatively to the retained imports of 1935, but, in point of fact, the vast proportion of those Customs duties were upon petroleum, tobacco, beer, and wines and spirits, which are not, in fact, protective revenues at all. They are really straight revenue-producing taxation which we should not modify under any Free Trade policy whatever.
Our tariff revenue resulting from a protective tariff policy does not amount to more than £49,000,000 a year, that is to say, approximately 7 per cent. of our retained imports of £702,000,000, a figure probably lower than that of any country in Europe. There were other duties which the hon. Member mentioned such as tobacco, sugar, tea, coffee, which are really not protective but primarily revenue-producing duties intended as a direct tax upon the consumers. A tariff revenue of £49,000,000 is not, in my submission, under present conditions, sufficiently high.
I have said that our tariff policy has been a success. In 1931, our exports were £390,000,000; in 1937 they rose to £521,000,000. In 1931 our exports of manufactures were £292,000,000; in 1937 £404,000,000. Employed persons in 1931 numbered 9,500,000, and by 1937 they had risen to 11,500,000, and of these my impression is that at least 600,000 were directly employed in manufacturing goods which are being protected by a moderate protective tariff. In 1931 our production of coal was 220,000,000 tons, and in 1937, 247,000,000 tons. The gloomy prophecies of which so much was heard in this House in 1931 when the tariff was introduced have been falsified at every point. In spite of the rise in prices, the food index figure stands to-day at 45 points above 1914, as compared with 59 in 1929. It is true that it was as low as 32 in 1931, but at what a cost of misery. Is there anybody

who would wish to go back to 1931, with its low prices and low employment?
Imperial Preference has been a resounding success. Exports to British countries are up £78,000,000 since 1931; imports from British countries, £158,000,000 since 1931. Yet we have maintained and increased our foreign trade. Our foreign exports are up by £65,000,000 since 1931, and our imports by £10,000,000. But our retained imports of competitive manufactures in 1937 were 32 per cent. higher in volume than in 1935, and higher than in 1924. Is this the moment for weakening our tariff against the cold winds which will come, I fear, against us with hurricane force? The answer is to be found in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. With 1,500,000 persons unemployed we can afford to take no risks, so long as our recovery has not reached the point at which we can reduce our unemployment below that figure.
The fundamental reason for exports is to purchase what we cannot ourselves produce or make. Great Britain, with the exception of coal, has nothing to export except the skill of her people. Our capacity for trading abroad consists of our ability to export coal and manufactured goods, assisted by invisible exports such as shipping services, which are being steadily undermined by half-a-dozen governments, led by the United States of America, who are subsidising their shipping and seeking to drive our shipping off the ocean so far as they can. The French Government are also considering further great subsidies, and there are other States—Russian, German, Italian, and others—all determined, unless we can take counter measures, or enter into mad competition, to reduce still further our invisible exports. If we import more competitive manufactures than are absolutely necessary, we are wasting our buying capacity and adding to our costs. The annual cost of supporting 1,500,000 unemployed in decent penury—and we do not suggest that it is more than that—is £75,000,000. The real cost in misery and in the waste of human material is not to be calculated in terms of money. Men and women cannot—and even less to-day than formerly—quickly transfer their acquired skill from one industry to another. Each smitten industry leaves a long trail of distress behind it. Against these violent fluctuations the tariff wall we have is small enough, and there are


great anxieties abroad among the commercial community lest we should be led by distributors and financiers and those of the community to whom production is of no particular account, to lower that wall, in the vain hope that other nations will imperil their own slender degree of prosperity in order to encourage ours.
I have spoken of invisible exports. The shipping service is one of them. Another is the produce of our loans abroad. Sir Robert Kindersley has recently drawn attention to the steady shrinkage of the sums which we may expect to receive, and which we have received in the past few years, from this source. If I remember aright he said that last year our available receipts from that source were £76,000,000 less than in the previous year, and they are likely to go down yet further. I see no likelihood of any considerable recovery. In these circumstances it is doubly dangerous for us to seek to encourage an import trade for which we may soon be unable to pay—extra imports, which, I would add, tend in time of relative prosperity to consist largely of luxury goods. We paid £175,000,000 in 1937 for competitive manufactures. Add to this £75,000,000 paid for unemployment, and you have a total of £250,000,000, four-fifths of the total value of all the raw materials imported into this country for the purpose of our industry.
These figures indicate that the situation, while it is far better than it was, is still dangerous, and that it is most unwise for us to contemplate any considerable reduction of our tariffs or any considerable increase of our imports. Let me give a few examples. We purchased in machinery £11,000,000 more in 1937 than in 1935. That is more than double as much. The imports of carpets increased by 1,500,000 square yards in the last two years at an additional cost of nearly £1,000,000. Carpets from India rose by 150,000 square yards. I have spent years in India. I know how those carpets are made, under what conditions, and I do not like them. I do not envy those who would seek to bring the level of our industries down to the level under which only too many of those carpets are made. In 1937 the total of paper and cardboard of all sorts imported was 26,000,000 cwts., 5,000,000 cwts. more than in 1935, at an increased cost of nearly £4,000,000. All of

that paper and cardboard could have been made in this country, with advantage to our own trade.
For rubber footwear, a comparatively small item but with a very large factor of personal employment, the figures are astounding. In 1937 we imported 915,000 dozen pairs, an increase of 400,000 dozen pairs compared with 1935. We imported 2½ pairs for every boy and girl between the ages of five and fifteen, almost all from Canada and Hong Kong. We could and should have produced them in this country. I see little value in a foreign trade which consists of bringing rubber shoes from Hong Kong, where wages are based on the very lowest price of labour payable to Chinese, who are themselves living largely outside our control in conditions which we could not for a moment consider for our own people.
On the agricultural side our imports of eggs, every one of which we could produce better ourselves, are larger than ever, and they come for the most part from countries with a standard of living far lower than that I should like to see here. We are apt to regard Denmark as a country with a relatively high standard of living. Let those hon. Members who wish to see how far Denmark has that higher standard go to a Danish farm and see the conditions under which agricultural labourers live. Those conditions would not be tolerated here for a moment. Our imports of cream leaped from the prewar figure of 8,700 cwts. to 75,000 cwts., and less than half of it came from the Empire. Butter imports, pre-war, were 4,000,000 cwts.; in 1935 imports reached 10,000,000 cwts. Condensed skimmed milk, of little food value, represented 600,000 cwts. pre-war, and in 1935 1,500,000 cwts., and less than 5 per cent. came from the British Empire. Yet our cow population has gone up by less than 2 per cent. since the Milk Marketing Board was established.
The agricultural industry is still suffering depression. There are fewer men on the land year by year, and fewer acres under cultivation, and yet the agricultural industry is one in which, although the wages are unduly low, there is greater permanence of employment than in any other branch of industry. Farmers, far from making profits, can barely make both ends meet. What a different story they


have to tell from that of the great distributors and the great wholesale importers of foodstuffs for farmers, who in their annual reports regard a profit of 25 per cent. on the year's working as something about which not to boast, and express the hope it will be more next year. I doubt whether the farmers of any 10 counties of England make as much profit on the year's working, allowing £5 a week for their own services, as is made by one large importing firm with a tenth as much capital as the farmers have invested.
We can buy abroad only by exchanging goods or services. Of services I have spoken—shipping going down, invisible exports from our loans going down. The profits of insurance and similar services seem unlikely to increase, for restrictive legislation is being imposed in almost every country, making it more difficult for firms to develop that very valuable form of business; and I see no likelihood of royalties on patents, or books, etc., increasing.
May I say a few words regarding particular industries? I have some connection with the embroidery trade. It employs, I suppose, 6,000 or 8,000 hands, mostly young women. It is highly competitive. It has been protected for the past five years by a moderate tariff, on the strength of which firms engaged in the business have extended their factories, have spent large sums in purchasing machinery, and have trained girls and men in what is a highly skilled and delicate and thoroughly good type of employment. Their industry is now under a cloud, for they hear of negotiations with Switzerland and of attempts to procure a reduction of our tariffs. Is it in the interest of this country that a trade of that sort, already on a highly competitive basis, should be imperilled? It is a comparatively small thing, no doubt, if 8,000 women are working only half time or their number is reduced to 4,000 or 5,000, but there are few trades better suited for women in industrial areas, and it gives them a choice of occupation which on the social and the aesthetic side I regard as of great value. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) will deal with the question of fabric gloves, and I have no doubt that the Seconder of the Motion will deal with the industries of

her own constituency, in particular with jute.
We hear rumours in the Press and elsewhere that one of the bases of the proposed trade agreement with America is that our market will be made more accessible than at present to the products of American motor factories. America already sells to us four times as much as she buys. What likelihood is there that our exports can be increased even to cover the value of the increase of cars imported? Do we really want more or cheaper cars? What will be the effect on the motor industry of this country, concentrated as it is in a very few localities? A public works policy will not help Coventry or Cowley, or Luton or Leicester. I earnestly hope that the interest of these great industries will not be imperilled. Our textiles, the luxury trades, the high-class goods trades, may or may not benefit by a change in tariff, but the 100,000 or 120,000 young men engaged in the motor industry cannot be readily transferred to the highly technical and delicate operations of the textile and leather industries, and the like.
Having reached the position we have done, and trade having become more or less stabilised, it is, in my submission, far better to keep what we have got now, when trade has become accustomed to the tariff, than to enter into adventures which are causing grievous anxiety and are partly responsible for the present recession of trade, however slight it is. The threat of increasing importations is just as important a factor to-day as are the importations themselves. It is having the worst effect upon those very industries which have conduced most notably to the recovery of our trade in the past five years. It is the new trades which are going to be affected, not the old ones, and it is the new trades which have done so well—as is shown by the evidence given on behalf of the Ministry of Labour today before the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of Population—which will particularly suffer if, as we fear, there is to be a substantial modification of our tariffs. I believe this to be above all the case in agriculture the plight of which is widely regarded by persons with no particular political views as being a real danger to our national welfare.
Whether in peace or war we must depend as far as we can on what our own


soil will produce with our own hands, on what we can get from our own mines, and above all from our technical knowledge and skill, the character and health of our fellows. These are great assets. No country in the world has better soil, better mines, no people has a higher character or greater skill. They are enjoying more protection than we realise from the tariff wall which was erected around this country by the wisdom of the Government of 1931. I see storms ahead in the new world as well as the old. No one can be unaware of the anxieties that beset the Government in many directions. I earnestly hope that in the negotiations to which they have put their hands they will bear in mind the terms of this Motion, and that they will remember that, having reached our present position, we desire, above all, stability. The safeguard which we need is not a lower but a higher tariff, and an assurance that those tariffs which we already enjoy will not be altered.

4.16 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to second the Motion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on the very able speech to which we have listened, and I add to my congratulations my gratitude that he has given the House an opportunity to discuss this Motion. I can assure him that my gratitude will be echoed by many people outside this House who fear that their employment is in danger and that trouble is ahead for them unless the Government realise the difficulty and act quickly. Having expressed my congratulations, I should like to express my disappointment that certain hon. Members who have put their names to an Amendment have not been able to be present this afternoon. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I am particularly disappointed that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the right hon. Member for West Stirling could not be present.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I say that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was in the House earlier, but has had to go away on account of illness.

Miss Horsbrugh: I regret the reasons for his absence, more particularly as the jute industry is connected with the industry of Kirkcaldy. I am still disappointed about the absence of the right hon. Member and I hope that my sadness will not be increased by hearing that the right hon. Member for West Stirling is ill, and that consequently cannot be here. The right hon. Gentleman is a great expert on this subject. He has been to India and has studied the jute trade. Above all, he has occupied the proud position of being Member of Parliament for the City of Dundee. He, therefore, knows the position of that trade, about which he has spoken over and over again, and I should have liked to have heard from him why he supports the proposal that has been put down in the terms of the Amendment. No doubt the hon. Member for Dunfermline will explain. If there is one thing which the Amendment makes clear it is that it is an Amendment of delay. I should have liked to have asked the right hon. Gentleman, who has represented the citizens of Dundee, whether he thinks that it is right that while he endeavours to raise the standard of living of people in other parts of the world we should stand by and wait while the standard of living and of employment of the people in this country go down?
When my hon. Friend was moving his Motion he spoke of Empire trade and Imperial Preference, and directed our attention to the necessity of looking to the future. I speak as a supporter of Empire trade and Imperial Preference, and I ask the House to look to the future and take note of what is happening. We know only too well from the many Debates that we have had on the subject that there are areas in this country where there are misery and unemployment, areas which have become derelict because trade has left them. We know of the efforts of the Government to bring new factories and to bring trade to areas from which the trade has gone. I would ask Members of the Government to consider whether they are looking on the factory problem with a one-way mind? Will their only consideration be how best to get new factories into the derelict areas, or will they begin from to-day to consider how they are to keep factories going in areas where they are situated at the present time but are threatened with extinction?
I am a supporter of Empire trade and Imperial Preference and I believe that our Empire trade must be built up on a complementary basis. It would be wrong for this country to endeavour to extinguish a trade built up in any part of our Dominions. Our Dominions have a perfect right to build up their own industries and a perfect right to develop new industries, and to get all the information they can to help their trade and to make them efficient. We have no right to come between and to spoil the success of those particular industries. While we wish it to be understood distinctly that we would not do that in regard to the Dominions, we also maintain that in the complementary spirit it shall be made clear to all the Dominions and every part of the Empire that they should not seek to spoil or extinguish industry in this country.
I want to speak particularly on the jute trade and the difficulties that are being experienced through the competition of India. At the outset I should like to say that what we are proposing would not damage the jute trade of India. We do not suggest that the jute trade of this country could take up the enormous production of the jute trade of India. It would be ridiculous to suggest that. What we do say is that the trade in India cannot be allowed by its exports to extinguish the jute trade in this country and to throw our people into unemployment. I do not think that I need stress the difficulties that naturally arise from different costs of production. The difference in wages and costs as between this country and India are well known. The hon. Member for Hitchin has already referred to them. We want to keep up our standard in this country. We have protected the standard of hours and wages of our people and we ask that their work should also be protected.
I am informed that in the jute industry the labour content is about 65 per cent. of the cost price. When we are dealing with jute, the raw material of which is cheap, we realise that the enormous difference in price must be as to wages and costs of production. I need not stress that point. We cannot in this country, with our standards of living, produce jute goods at the price at which they are produced in India. I am told that the jute trade of the United Kingdom has always been in difficulties, that there has been one

crisis after another, and they have always got out of them. I agree. The history of this trade has been one difficulty after another. They have planned and negotiated to get out of their difficulties, but in each case their plans and negotiations have broken down and they have found themselves worse off than before.
The case is urgent to-day. The difficulty has been growing for years. Anyone who has any information or knowledge about the jute trade will agree that the bad year for the jute trade in Dundee was 1920, when 109,000,000 square yards of jute cloth were imported into this country, with a consequent sharp rise in unemployment. The jute trade of this country got together with the jute trade of India to see what could be done, and an arrangement was made. The Jute Mills Association in India agreed to limit hours and production. Then an improvement came. We saw the imports drop by 50 per cent. 1928 was the best year Dundee has ever known. The imports of 109,000,000 square yards dropped to 28,000,000 square yards and we were able to produce and sell in Dundee as cheaply as the selling price in India, because they had brought down their hours and had put up their prices. The result was that other people went into the jute industry in India. Prices were high, for which we were thankful because we could compete at a margin of profit; but new mills were put up in India. They did not work the hours agreed upon by the Jute Mills Association and we saw the same process happen over again. Prices came down and imports of jute into this country increased.
In 1930 a further agreement was made with regard to hours. Again, more new mills were erected. Again, attempts were made to cut the hours down to 40, and 15 per cent. of the looms were sealed. Once more there was a breakdown. More mills were put up in India and the hours of work went from 54 to 108. We saw what happened. We have seen the increase in imports into this country and proportionally with that increase we have seen the difficulties of Dundee. Not only did we see increases of imports of goods produced in India but we saw Dundee trade being driven out of the markets of the world. They had to fall back more and more upon specialties, which India


did not make. The National Government by trade agreements helped our export industries. The agreements with Denmark and to an extent with the Argentine were helpful, but the latter is of less help now than before, because the price of the Indian goods has gone down, and we have seen the exports from India begin to rise again. In 1935, when control of hours and looms was taken off, we saw 71,000,000 square yards of jute coming into this country. In 1936 that figure had increased to 140,000,000 square yards, and in 1937 to 177,000,000. It is not merely that an increase in imports has taken place, but what is alarming is the increase in the increase.
We are looking ahead. Can any hon. Member suggest one scheme whereby we can check that position except by some scheme of protection? Except in that way is there any hope for this trade and for the employment of 30,000 people—the industry used to be much larger—7,000 of whom are now unemployed.

Mr. Gallacher: They need protection against capital.

Miss Horsbrugh: I would protect them, and I hope the hon. Member will join me in protecting them, against any form of goods that are produced under terms and arrangements that are entirely unequal with theirs. I want to protect them—and I do not care whose capital is in the business, whether abroad or in the Dominion—against goods made under conditions from which we have protected the workpeople in this country. Unfortunately, we have not protected their work, whilst protecting their conditions.
The imports in 1936 went up to 140,000,000 square yards. I would ask hon. Members to note that while there has been the enormous, increase in imports between 1928 and 1935, an increase of 375 per cent., in other countries there was a decrease of 5 per cent. What had happened? The enormous increase in products in India had been pushed out of the markets of the world because of their tariffs. Every other manufacturing country had a tariff against manufactured jute goods. The last country to put on a tariff was the Irish Free State, a tariff of 50 per cent. Therefore, our market was the only market open to receive—to quote a Scottish term—the full spate of

that extra production in India. Between 1935 and 1936 the imports of jute goods into this country went up by 92 per cent. while the increase of imports to other countries was only 30 per cent. The position is that ours is an open free market, while we have to meet competition in the markets of the world.
The jute trade has been existing during the last few years because of certain fortuitous circumstances. At present Calcutta does not manufacture wide hessian for the linoleum trade, and other things which we call specialities. I should like to say a word about that. The industry of India has been gradually encroaching on work that in the past has been done in the United Kingdom. At one time we were told that certain types of cloth could never be manufactured in Calcutta, but it has in fact been done. Ninety per cent. of the imports into this country are of the standard width made in Dundee, but gradually they have reached more to what we call specialities. Only last year experts from India were in this country studying the production of linoleum hessians, and I am told that certain samples from Calcutta are already on the market. I do not think we can or that we ought to suggest that Calcutta should not manufacture particular types of goods. They will manufacture them, and it seems to me that we shall have to do something to protect our own industry. Sometimes the fact is overlooked that India has made sure of protecting her industries. I had not realised until a little time ago that India has a 25 per cent. duty on manufactured jute goods. The position to me seems strange. There is no preference for us, while we provide India with an open market. The same revenue duties are levied on the raw jute which comes to Britain as to any other country. A 25 per cent. import duty on jute goods by India, a free market here; and no preference.
That is not really the best way of building up a really complementary Empire trade. We shall have to get together more, and I would appeal to the people in India, and point out to them that this enormous export from India to us means so much to us and is so trivial to them. We talk about the 8 per cent. of India's total export coming to Britain. It was previously only 2 or 3 per cent. that came. I would


point out that this 8 per cent. of India's export trade is 34 per cent. of the whole of the United Kingdom production. I suggest that if some restriction was made on this 8 per cent. of the export trade of India it would not strike a very bad blow at the jute industry of India but would make all the difference to the industry in the United Kingdom. It would give us in Dundee a better chance of prosperity and more hope for better times than we have had for many years past. The reasons why we have been able to keep going during the last two years—last year was a better year—are two. The first is that during four months of last year there were strikes in Calcutta and orders which would have gone to Calcutta came to the United Kingdom. The second reason is that after the time of the floods in the Mississippi Valley those people engaged in the linoleum business received phenomenal orders in order to replace the loss. We in Dundee came in for large orders, as will be seen by a reference to the Board of Trade returns. There was a large increase in the exports of the United Kingdom to the United States of America during that short period.
Many people who have been interested in this trade have watched the difficulty during the past years. They have spoken about it and have always hoped that we might be able to have something more stable in our complementary trade with Calcutta; but all efforts have proved useless. Things cannot go on in the state in which they are at present. We are thankful that we are receiving orders from the Government for sandbags. It has given employment in the jute trade; it is keeping up, shall I say, a minimum standard of nutrition in the jute trade. I know that these orders are given with the clear understanding that they are a palliative to help us during this time of distress. This trade is vital to the country. We must never forget what part the jute trade must play in our defences in time of war, and a trade which is vital to the interests of this country cannot be allowed to go down. Nor can an area be allowed to become derelict, and men and women be deprived of their means of livelihood, for the want of a small measure of protection.
Having put the position of the jute industry, let me now deal with the efforts which have been made to deal with the

situation. Last summer the Indian delegates who were in this country could not see their way to meet the views of members of the United Kingdom jute trade who put forward various suggestions to them. I have taken deputation after deputation to the Board of Trade, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for receiving those deputations, and his predecsesor in office as well. I introduced a deputation of employers and employed, and last July there was a deputation which I think is unique in the history of the City of Dundee. It was a deputation which consisted of the Lord Provost, members of the town council—and at that time a majority of the town council were members of the Labour party—members of the employers' organisations, and the employes, led by the Labour trade union secretary, a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and both Members of Parliament representing the City of Dundee. That was a unique deputation.
We went there to put forward a united appeal for protection for the jute trade of the United Kingdom. The suggestion was made that there should be a quota. Previously we had put forward a scheme for a quota or a tariff, but we were united in saying that there must be some form of protection, otherwise the industry would go down. I should like to point out that the danger is not only to a single industry which employs 30,000 people in Dundee and the surrounding district, but to the City of Dundee, with a population of 170,000. About 41 per cent. of the insured population are employed in the jute trade. There are 15,000 unemployed in Dundee to-day, and 7,000 of these are jute-workers; mills are closing and looms are idle because we cannot compete with the standard of living in India. The distributive trades and other trades are also affected, and, indeed, if the jute trade of Dundee goes down the city and the district go down also. We have tried to improve our housing accommodation and we have educational centres and technical colleges for those who are being trained to do work in the jute industry.
We have a statement from the Harbour Trust, pointing out that 38 per cent. of their revenue comes from dues on the shipment of Indian jute. We boast in Dundee that the biggest ship which goes through the Suez Canal can be docked in


the harbour of Dundee and sheds and wharves have been built in connection with the jute industry. About 300 people are employed directly by the Board and there are another 450 regularly employed in the docks and an extra 450 during the jute season. That is 1,200 people altogether. Dundee and the whole district depend on the jute industry and there is no reason to suppose that if the manufacturing industry goes down the harbour will ever be the centre of the gunney trade. I am told that 60 per cent. would have to be added to the dues which are now paid if the raw jute imports ceased. What will that mean to Fife and Perth, Angus and Dundee? These ships have to go elsewhere, and what will be the result to the harbour? The whole district would be affected. When the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin was speaking I noticed that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) was interested in the point of view of the hon. Member who shares with me the representation of Dundee.

Mr. Kirkwood: I was interested in the fact that a Liberal Member was also being interested in protection.

Miss Horsbrugh: I was going to point out that the matter is so urgent that even fiscal principles have to give way to practical facts. I appreciate that the leaders of the Labour party in Dundee and Liberals who oppose the National Government have got together on this subject and are united in asking for protection for the jute trade. The strands of jute have bound us all together. There have been many occasions on which we have differed and there will be many occasions in the future when we shall differ, but on this occasion we are not putting forward any party point of view, but are appealing to the Government on behalf of a trade and industry which is threatened with extinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) in the autumn gave a message to the people of Dundee through the local Press which expresses the view I have tried to make this afternoon. He said, speaking of the Indian trade agreement:
If it can be obtained I want to see a Clause determining the extent to which India is to supply the United Kingdom with jute goods, during the currency of the agreement. The question is not a simple one or an easy one, but I shall continue to do anything I can

to urge on those responsible how necessary it is to arrive at a solution on this point along the lines of my suggestion.
I agree with that entirely. To-day my hon. Friend can urge the Government and those responsible for the agreement to include in it a Clause defining the extent to which jute goods shall come into the markets of the United Kingdom, and by such an agreement I believe we can bring to this area of Scotland some hope for the future and more prosperity than the jute industry has known for a long time. The prosperity of the jute trade is very necessary for the district. I plead for this protection because I know the anxiety and misery in the city of Dundee. Many of the people there are now unemployed. They are my friends and I know how much they want to work. They are skilled workers, and I plead that their opportunities for work shall not be taken from them and given to those who are working under conditions which we do not allow to exist in this country.
I am surprised to see the Amendment on the Order Paper, and I should like to hear how long the hon. Member for Dunfermline thinks his scheme would be in working out. Would it be carried out in one year or two years or three years? Will he tell us how soon this international conference can meet and how soon we may look for a decision? Will he tell us exactly what is meant by a "minimum standard of labour"? I ask him whether he realises how desperately urgent is the question for the jute industry to-day. I would point out to him and to my right hon. and gallant Friend who is, I believe, to reply for the Government, that we have now an opportunity to do something for this industry which in the past has tried to come to an agreement with India. A new trade agreement with India is being negotiated, and in the Motion we ask that the difficulties of the jute trade and its welfare should be kept in the foreground.
I would also remind hon. Members that recently the Jute Mills Association, and those connected with other mills outside the Association, have been meeting and discussing the problems of the industry. I am told that they wish to reorganise the trade in India. When, in conversation, I asked what part of the trade it was thought would be allotted to the United Kingdom in their reorganisation, it seemed to me that they considered that


the mills in India would have to fight out their own battle and that there would be economic warfare between one mill and another. I pointed out that surely, in the reorganisation of the trade, it would make things more clear and simple if the British Government made quite clear at the beginning that we insist that some part of the trade should be left in this country, that we claim some part of it as our own, that we stake out our right to some part of the home market and our right to the employment of our people, and that we insist on the necessity of keeping a jute industry in this country. If that were made clear when the reorganisation was beginning, surely less time would be wasted. I am told that there is to be an annual meeting of the Jute Mills Association on 18th February, and I hope that what is said here to-day will re-echo in India, and that they will realise there that we do not grudge their expansion in the jute trade, and that all we say is that some portion of that trade must still be carried on by us. The consumption of jute goods may be growing, but everybody in India knows that there is over-production; exports have increased, but stocks have increased also. We are told that the trade realises that reorganisation must take place. In the reorganisation of the trade in the Empire, both India and the United Kingdom must take their proper place.
It is for those reasons, and because I believe that hon. Members sympathise with the difficulties of the district, which I have tried to describe, that I ask every hon. Member to support the Motion. I ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline whether he does not think that the scheme which we put forward in the Motion is better than that contained in the Amendment. By showing that we will not compete on equal terms with goods manufactured on unequal terms, should we not be doing something to help to bring up the standard of life of the people in that country? Because of that, and because I believe it is our first duty to save the standard of life of the people in this country, I ask the hon. Member not to press the Amendment, but to allow the Motion to be passed unanimously; and I appeal to the Government to accept the Motion, to save the jute trade of the country, and to bring prosperity to Dundee.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I beg to move, in line I, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
taking note of the effects of the exploitation in the jute industry in Bengal by British and other capital, calls upon the Government to promote an international conference for the purpose of fixing minimum standards of labour conditions and imposing an international prohibition of imports of goods produced under conditions below those standards so long as there is an alternative source of supply of such goods produced under fair and reasonable conditions.
No one regrets more than I do the absence of my two right hon. Friends this afternoon. As has already been explained, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) is unable to be present owing to illness. I very much regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) because, as the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) said, my right hon. Friend has studied this question very thoroughly, not only in this country but in India. Unfortunately, a very urgent engagement has prevented him from coming to the House up to the moment, although I am not sure whether he may not arrive before the close of the Debate.
I listened to the closing appeal of the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee, but I intend to press the Amendment. I maintain that the Amendment contains an entirely different proposition from that contained in the Motion, and it is in support of that proposition that I shall address the House. Had I ever been a tariff reformer, I might have agreed with the senior Member for Dundee, and have withdrawn the Amendment; but I have never been a tariff reformer, although I do not deny that I have been a protectionist, for I have been a protectionist since the day on which I started to work. When I started to work I became a member of my trade union, and I remain a member of it, and as a trade unionist I am a protectionist. I am all for the protection of labour and the conditions under which I and my fellow workers have to work. Therefore, the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) need not have been directed to me. He does not need to try to convert me to Protection, for I have been more or less a protectionist since I started work—not a protectionist for the capitalists, but for


the workers. I want to protect the workers' interests from the capitalists, whether the capitalists be British or foreign.
The hon. Member for Hitchin, in moving the Motion, made a typical tariff reform speech, which was very loudly cheered by hon. Members opposite; but I would point out to the House that there is in the Motion an aspect of the subject which has not been emphasised by either of the hon. Members who have addressed the House, that is to say, the relationship of the tariff reformer here to our own Dominions. So far, that matter has been skimmed over as lightly as possible by the speakers, but I hope that before the Debate closes we shall hear definitely from Protectionist Members opposite whether or not those in our Colonies and Dominions are to be treated as belonging to the Empire or as foreigners. I know that there is a section of opinion in this country which regards Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as being as much foreigners as Germans, Italians or Japanese. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate we shall see before the Debate closes whether or not they are prepared to take up the same attitude towards those in our Dominions as they do towards foreigners.
The hon. Member for Hitchin said something with which I entirely agree. He said that every depression of recent years has originated abroad. I suppose that that applies to the depression which began in 1931, as well as to those before and since. Therefore, the 1931 depression was not caused by the Labour Government, and I hope that when the Labour Government of 1931 is being blamed for certain things, hon. Members opposite will remember that even that depression originated abroad, and that this country was simply caught in it, as were other industrial nations. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Hitchin in his arguments in favour of a tariff policy to safeguard the industries of this country. I was much more interested in the speech of the hon. lady the Senior Member for Dundee. The hon. Member for Hitchin certainly indicated that he is very well satisfied with what has been achieved by the policy pursued by the National Government since 1931. He said that he is satisfied up to the present time, but that he sees certain dangers

ahead and wants certain other improvements to be made. On the other hand, the hon. lady the Member for Dundee is not quite as satisfied, because things have not gone very well in the industry in which she is specially interested.

Miss Horsbrugh: I would like to make the position clear to the hon. Member. Things are better even now in the jute industry, for they have 15,000 unemployed instead of 26,000 before. I was considering the future, and I want things to be still better.

Mr. Watson: I suppose that, like many other places in Great Britain, Dundee has benefited from the rearmament programme of the Government. It has also benefited from the tariff policy of the Government, because it has been laid down that bacon, meat and other imported foodstuffs should be wrapped in jute cloth manufactured in Dundee. More recently, as part of the Government's rearmament programme, 1,000,000 sandbags have been ordered from Dundee.

Miss Horsbrugh: 45,000,000.

Mr. Watson: I was a long way out in my figure. As part of the rearmament programme, 45,000,000 sandbags have been ordered from Dundee, and naturally the result is that there are more persons in employment and more prosperity in Dundee than there would have been but for the rearmament programme of the Government. Therefore Dundee is not quite as bad as it might be at the moment, but apparently, the outlook appals the hon. Lady, and I agree with her in that respect. As a close friend of Dundee, I do not want to say a word which would worsen the position in that city. I have known that position for a considerable number of years. I deplore the industrial conditions which have existed in Dundee for a considerable time. I agree that Dundee has had and is likely to have a very hard struggle to keep going. I remember the representations made by the deputation to which the hon. Lady has referred. That deputation certainly made it clear that the prospect of the industry in Dundee was very black indeed. As a matter of fact, but for that order which was given by the Government some months ago, the position in Dundee at this moment would be bad enough in all conscience.
I have, as I say, considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady because I represent a constituency which has made a name in the world for another product, just as famous as the name made by Dundee for its jute. The town of Dunfermline has been associated with the linen industry for generations. It has produced some of the finest linen that ever was produced. It is still producing some of the finest linen that can be produced, but the industry has almost vanished. Factory after factory has been closed and the thousands of workers who used to be engaged in the linen industry have dwindled to a few hundreds. The competition which has told so hardly on Dunfermline has not been from India. It has come mainly from Czechoslovakia, but it has also come from some places in the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland and Lancashire. I put this to our tariffist friends opposite. In order to protect the linen industry in Dunfermline would they advocate putting on tariffs against Northern Ireland or Lancashire? Do they consider that that would be the cure for that disease?
It may be true that, to a certain extent, the linen industry has suffered because of change in fashion. Not so much linen is demanded nowadays as in byegone days. Silk has come in and taken the place of linen. More silk is being manufactured and less linen goods are being produced. But I ask my hon. Friends opposite, what would they propose in the case of a town like Dunfermline suffering from the competition of other places within the United Kingdom. How would they propose to solve that difficulty? It is true, as I say, that the Dunfermline manufacturers have suffered as the result of competition from Czechoslovakia but they have also suffered from the competition of places here in our own country—Belfast, Londonderry and places in Northern Ireland especially, and places in Lancashire as well.
This Amendment in the first place draws attention to the effects of the exploitation of the jute industry in Bengal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire would, no doubt, have reminded the House had he been here, a, great deal of the capital sunk in the Bengal jute industry was British capital—Dundee capital. It was British capital which set up the mills in Bombay and in India generally. That is where the trouble

began and how it began. Not only was there British capital but there was British machinery, and there were managers from Dundee, technicians from Dundee, workers from Dundee, teaching the Indians how to operate these jute machines. That was the beginning of the trouble in Dundee. My right hon. Friend would also, I am sure, have told the House that the process had been so successful from the business point of view that some of those firms were at one time paying up to 400 per cent. in dividends.
My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of the Textile Workers' Union in Dundee visited India and issued a report in 1926 in which they showed what had been going on before that time. My right hon. Friend was interested then in the welfare of the jute industry in Dundee. He was so interested that he went to India to inquire into the position there, and the information which he secured was published and can be read to this day by those who are interested in this subject. He showed that enormous profits were being reaped by these industrial concerns in India. There was less consideration then about the position in Dundee or anywhere else in this country. Attention was being devoted to building up this industry nearer to the sources of supply of the raw material. To-day we have the doleful speech of the senior Member for Dundee and the plea that something should be done to safeguard the jute industry here.
I want to tell the hon. Lady that I am moving this Amendment because of the experience which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire had while he was in India. He saw the difficulties which would, inevitably, beset the British workers if they were brought into competition with workers employed under conditions such as he found in India. It was in order to get a cure for that disease that something along the lines indicated in the Amendment has been adopted by the Labour party as its policy for dealing with this problem. The hon. Lady asked me a very direct question. She asked me when I thought the scheme proposed in the Amendment could be brought into operation—could it be done at a year or in two years or in three years? I propose to ask her how long she thinks it will be before the President of the Board of Trade is able to provide the protection that she wants for the workers in Dundee. Will it be in one year?

Miss Horsbrugh: I hope so.

Mr. Watson: The hon. Lady on her own confession went to the Board of Trade several times last year. I do not know what the answer of the Board of Trade this afternoon will be, but I shall be surprised if the hon. Lady gets any more encouragement than she got when she introduced her deputations last year. In all probability the present state of things will go on for some years, because in dealing with the subject of this kind the Government are up against difficulties. Their hands are tied by the Ottawa Agreement. They have tariffs against the foreigner and they allow manufactured articles and certain other goods to come in free from the Dominions. The question upon which they have to make up their minds is whether or not they are prepared to treat our own Dominions as they treat the foreigners. That is what the hon. Lady is asking this afternoon—that either by the process of a tariff or by quota, there should be a restriction on the amount of jute goods imported into this country.
There is nothing surer than that there will be trouble between the Government of this country and the Government of India if any such step is taken. The Government of India will want to know why this line should be adopted by the Government of this country and there will be trouble should any such proposals be put into operation. Therefore, I shall be very much surprised if the senior Member for Dundee has not to continue to argue for two or three years along the lines on which she has argued this afternoon before the Government face the problem which she has placed before them. I am afraid they will allow the jute industry in Dundee to die, as they have allowed the linen industry in Dunfermline and elsewhere almost to die. The tariff policy of the Government has not in the slightest degree assisted the town which I represent. Had our very expert workers not been able to turn from the manufacture of linen to the manufacture of silk, we would be in a parlous position in Dunfermline to-day. But by the adaptability of our workers and the enterprise of certain firms which have come to that town, a good silk industry is being built up there, and I would like the Government to say when they propose to give a little more assistance to the silk industry in this country by taking off the

duty on the raw materials of that industry—duties which are being imposed in the name of tariff policy.
The hon. Lady has asked me to withdraw this Amendment in order that there should be a unanimous Resolution of the House to-day on the question of tariffs and quotas. I have never been in favour of tariffs or quotas. The Amendment expresses the attitude which I have always taken on the question of Protection. It asks for an international conference. The hon. Lady asked how long it would take before such a conference could meet. Our policy has been to work through the machinery of the League of Nations, to use the International Labour Office for dealing with problems of this kind and to have a conference of the kind suggested, which would lay down minimum standards in labour conditions. In connection with the jute industry, we would propose to go along the following lines: First of all, we would deal with the problem of hours, to get hours unified as between Great Britain, foreign countries, and our own Dominions. All the countries represented at the League of Nations meeting would be asked to agree upon a minimum standard of hours. That is the first question that would be tackled and settled, and we would then deal with the very important question of child labour, the conditions under which children shall be employed in mills and factories. Only after these two questions were settled would we deal with wages, which, I agree, is the most vital of all the questions with which we can deal in a matter of this kind.
The wages earned in India, Japan, China, Czechoslovakia, and this country show wide variations, and undoubtedly the question of wages would be the most difficult to settle, but our plan is that a conference of that kind should lay down minimum standards that should be observed by all these countries, and in the event of any country refusing to carry out these conditions, the penalty is also laid down in this Amendment. It is not the imposition of a quota, not saying that you would allow a certain quantity of goods from that country to come into our country; the penalty is prohibition. If goods are manufactured in a foreign country or in our own Dominions under worse conditions than those in which they are produced here, the cure is not tariffs, which simply bring money into the coffers


of the Government. Quite recently the Secretary to the Treasury was telling us of millions that have come to the Treasury because of the imposition of these tariffs—a fine way for the Government to raise revenue, out of the indirect taxation of our people. We have never agreed with this tariff policy, and our policy is not tariffs, not even quotas, but direct, absolute prohibition.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Do I understand that the hon. Member would totally prohibit the importation into this country of goods coming from any country where the wage rates were lower than ours? Is that the proposal?

Mr. Watson: That is what I am saying. I have already been explaining that we are proposing to work through the machinery of the League of Nations, the International Labour Office, and after the nations represented at that conference had agreed to a minimum standard, goods coming from any country where they were produced under worse conditions than at home, it would not be a question of tariffs, but of prohibition; and that is clearly stated in our Amendment. That is the policy of this party, in contradistinction to the policy that has been advocated from the other side. It is a policy that I myself have advocated in the constituency that I represent. I have told the linen workers in the city of Dunfermline that the cure for the ills from which they have suffered for years is neither tariffs nor quotas, but the prohibition of goods coming into this country from countries where they are produced under conditions worse than those obtaining here.
That is the substance of our Amendment, and I want to assure the hon. Member for Dundee once again that I have no antipathy towards the workers in Dundee. As a matter of fact, I have the very greatest sympathy with them, and I am prepared to say to them, as I said to the workers in Dunfermline, that if they want a cure for the ills from which they are suffering, it is a question, not of tariffs or quotas, but of the prohibition of Indian goods coming into this country when they are produced in India under worse conditions than in Dundee or other parts of this country. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire is not present to-day,

because in that book that he wrote, following his visit to India, he explained very clearly the conditions under which the workers in India work. In India we have seen the same sort of policy adopted as we have had in our own country—first of all enormous profits being earned, the expansion of the industry there, certain troubles facing that industry which have had to be got over, and several remedies tried; and at the moment it seems as if the manufacturers in India were busily engaged in cutting each others' throats in order to get as much of the home and foreign markets as they possibly can. We see the struggle going on in India for all the markets they can possibly secure, and as the hon. Member for Dundee rightly said, they are very pleased indeed when they can get a good share of the market in our country.
The annoyance of the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin is that the jute goods that we require in this country cannot be produced here, by British labour. As far as that is concerned, I am with them, and I believe that as far as possible we ought to produce the goods that we require in our own country. I am very pleased indeed that we are having this discussion, because it brings out very clearly the difference between the policy that has always been advocated by the Government side and the policy that has been advocated by the Labour party. Occasionally we are regarded as a sort of wing of the Liberal party—a rather strong wing, I should say, considering the size of the bird. We are sometimes regarded as in some way associated with the Liberal party because somehow or other they look upon us as a Free Trade party. We are not a Free Trade party, and we have never been a Free Trade party. If we had been, we should have been in the Liberal party and we should never have had any reason to dissociate ourselves from that party. Fortunately, before I began to take an interest in politics we had got a definite Socialist organisation established in this country, and I was able to associate myself with the Socialist party right from the beginning, and never had any connection or any sympathy with the Liberal party.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned—and I dare say so far as the great bulk of the Labour party are concerned—we never have been a Free Trade party, and the policy which I am advocating and


that is embodied in this Amendment is the policy that our party has accepted as the only policy for dealing properly with this question of sweated goods coming from foreign countries. The protectionist policy means a certain amount of governmental interference, governmental organisation, and occasionally perhaps governmental assistance, but that does not worry us on this side, because we are looking forward to the time when the Government of the country will interfere a great deal more in industrial matters than they have done up to the present time. We want to see our industrial system nationalised, socialised—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Gentleman is now getting very wide from the question.

Mr. Watson: I have no wish to go outside the terms of the Amendment, but in those terms there is clearly indicated the time when the trade and commerce of this country will be more or less under governmental control—call it socialisation, nationalisation, or anything you care. At any rate, in our Amendment is a definite step towards the time when there will be a change in our industrial system. As it is, we are at the moment trying to make his capitalist system work smoothly a little while longer, and the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin and the hon. Member for Dundee have come to us today and asked us to believe that this tariff and quota policy that they have been advocating will give us all the security and all the trade and all the prosperity that we really desire. We, on the other hand, say that neither tariffs nor quotas are going to give us the prosperity that we ought to enjoy in this country. We say that it is the business of the Government of the country to make sure that we have no unemployed to deal with. The Government may say that they are doing their best to cure the unemployment problem, but we say that the Government have a responsibility for the unemployed in this country and that the policy of tariffs and quotas will neither solve that problem nor yet deal with the situation that has been represented to us this afternoon by the mover and seconder of the Motion.
We are requiring a much more definite policy than that, and in this Amendment we are wishing to tell other countries, no

matter what countries they are—we make no distinction as to whether they are Germans, Italians, Indians, or Canadians—that if the goods imported into this country are produced under worse conditions than here at home, the cure is prohibition, that they must be manufactured here and produced here, giving British labour to British hands, which was supposed to be the policy of the Government at the last election. "British work for British hands" was what we had from every platform at the last two elections. As a matter of fact, as the hon. Member for Dundee has demonstrated, the policy which the Government have pursued has not given us the amount of work or prosperity that they expected. I am prepared to press the Amendment to a Division if only to demonstrate that our policy is definitely opposed to the policy of the Government in regard to tariffs and quotas.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I beg to second the Amendment.
When a few minutes ago I was asked to second the Amendment, it was my intention to do so formally. I would have confined myself to that but for the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). I was surprised to hear her object to the terms of the Amendment because, if I read aright the Motion which was so ably seconded by her, it is a protest against low wages and bad conditions. I am surprised, therefore, at her opposing an Amendment which deals with the same subject.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think I made it clear that I oppose it because I consider that it is a delaying Amendment, and that while you are trying to get up the standard of the people in India and elsewhere and trying to get an agreement through the International Labour Office, the standard of the people of this country and of Dundee in particular will go down. My Motion is quicker and more likely to succeed.

Mr. Leonard: It remains a matter of opinion as to which is the most expeditious method. I was also interested when the hon. Lady lectured the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and stated that fiscal principles must under certain conditions give way to practical facts. Fiscal principles must give way


also to basic facts, and the basic fact is that Dundee is involved in difficulties because of low wages in India. Until those low wages are attended to fiscal expedients will not save the position. They have been tried in other industries and countries for many years without effect. Just as bad money chases good money away, low wages undermine good wages, and there has never been found an expedient of a fiscal character that will beat low wages.
We are of opinion that ultimately the adoption of the Amendment will more expeditiously bring relief to the people of Dundee than the method proposed by the Motion. In India there is the possibility of improvement under guidance from this country. We are sometimes inclined to run away with the idea that the people of India are a backward type and would not respond sufficiently quickly to efforts to bring up the standards by any appreciable degree. I remember an ex-Speaker of this House, Mr. Whitley, speaking here a number of years ago, giving a good description of the type of persons in India. I specially remember him stating that in the works and factories there he saw a good type of manhood and womanhood and that that was caused by an ample supply of fresh labour. That ample supply of fresh labour, however, was wasted and killed by the horrible conditions in the mills. The wastage of manhood and womanhood, he said, was enormous.
This Amendment deals with the wastage of manhood and womanhood by international agreement to set up standards. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) endeavoured in his interruption to make us adopt the attitude that all imports would be stopped through this method if we insisted on the wage rates and conditions of this country. That is not what the Amendment says. It urges that standards should be agreed to for all countries. It does not, as he suggested, say that if other countries did not come up to the standards of wages and conditions of this country their goods would be prohibited. It asks that there should be brought into being standards of wages and conditions in each country suitable to each country, and that if those standards were not complied with the countries concerned would not be allowed to send goods to this country. I

remember Mr. Whitley also said that illiteracy was very great in India, but, notwithstanding that, justice was understood and independence valued. The men and women of that country will respond if they are given the chance to better conditions. He said that caste did not eliminate the desire of men and women to respond in the full sense of the term to efforts to improve their conditions.
We recently passed through this House the India Bill, and the House will recollect that many Amendments were moved in a long-drawn-out fight from this side of the House in an endeavour to get introduced into the Bill the possibility of Labour legislation in India becoming as federal subject. We fought hard for it, and from statements that were made from the other side of the House it was obvious that much of the opposition was prompted by the States of India that are ruled by the Princes. The reason was that those States have practically no labour legislation, and hours and conditions are never discussed, while factory legislation does not appear in their laws. If these things are discussed or do appear in India, it is in the British section of India and not in the States ruled by the Princes.
If we put a stop to bad conditions where we can put a stop to them in India, what will happen if the parts of India under the jurisdiction of the Princes start to take part in the production of jute? If Dundee is involved in difficulties because of competition from places where labour organisations can to some extent function, what will happen if capital is attracted to places in India where there is freedom from legislation of a restrictive character, such as factory legislation? The worst that India can do is not being done at the present time, and the only way to stop it is to anticipate the position, and to get, as far as we can, agreement on conditions. I feel sure that this method will give greater satisfaction to the people of Dundee, and in other industries. It can improve the position as expeditiously as any fiscal tinkering can.

5.42 p.m.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: We have heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) give very fine academic expositions of fiscal theories, but I do not believe that, if the Amendment were carried, there would be a trade


union left in Dundee because, by the time the theories could be put into effect, Dundee would be shut up. I am talking from intimate knowledge of the trade and personal acquaintance with many people in it, and I know what the conditions are. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) was lucky when she drew the first number in the Ballot, but unfortunately the House was adjourned because of the death of Mr. MacDonald. The state of Dundee was very bad then, and if the Board of Trade had done what we wanted then I believe that Dundee would have been in a better position now. If the Motion had been moved then, we should have made our case so well that the Board of Trade would have realised that they had to act. There is nothing political in this question, so far as I am concerned. I am interested in it because for years I have worked with the people in Dundee and I know them intimately. You can ask any of the people who have worked in our place what sort of employers we were. We got on first rate with them.
I want to make my position clear before I develop my argument about the jute trade. I sit for a Lancashire seat. Since 1922 their export of cotton yarn to India has gone down from 35,000,000 lbs. to 8,000,000 lbs., and piece goods have gone down from 1,200,000,000 yards to 351,000,000 yards. This decrease has been entirely caused by the increase in the tariff which India put on. We have Lancashire getting worse and worse, and the poor people there going out of employment through no fault of their own. Since I came to this House in 1923 I have done everything in my power to prevent those tariffs being increased. Every year I used to go to whoever was at the head of the India Office and say "Look here, I hope there will be no further increase in the Indian tariff this year." The reply would be, "I am so sorry, but you are a day late. We have just made an agreement." The next year when I went I would be told "Oh, no, it is perfectly all right, there is no change in the tariff." The next year I should be told "Do not raise this in the House just now, old chap, because political events in India are difficult."
I was pretty young in those days and did not realise that if one believed in anything one had to come out in face of all

opposition and say exactly what one thought. That is what I am going to do to-day. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for India in the Socialist Government is not here, because he was most unblushing in what he said. He stated that he was not going to interfere at all. We all know what the fiscal convention was—at least we found out what it was. I learned a great lesson from that. The Government here, if they had had the courage, or if the political position had not been put forward, could have prevented that rise in tariffs by simply saying, "No, it is not to be. It is a unilateral agreement."
I know that I am dealing here with the Indian agreement in regard to the cotton trade, which is not quite pertinent to this discussion, but one wonders whether the political gain has made up to Lancashire for all the misery which has been caused to her people. I do not think so. If our Government had said, "No, you are not to put on tariffs," there would not have been that enormous increase of production in India, and I do not believe the Indians would have been any worse off. I have been told that if anything were done now in the way of putting restrictions on the jute goods coming here from India it might wreck some chance of a lowering of the tariffs upon cotton goods from Lancashire. I should need to have very good proof indeed that Lancashire was going to benefit to any extent as against the prospect of affairs in the jute industry of Dundee being worsened still further, because I do not think that India cares a rap about this country. We have "the 26th of January meetings," and all that sort of stuff, but India is not so very fond of us, and knows perfectly well that it can pretty well go on as it likes.
I spent the bigger part of my life in Dundee, among the jute mills, and I know that to-day there are simply no orders coming in, absolutely none. They are working there from hand to mouth. The orders that come in one day can be delivered within a week. It takes about a week to get a beam out of the looms. The loss at present is about £5 a ton—a pretty excessive loss to be met. As we all know, it is quite impossible for Dundee labour to compete with the labour of the Indian coolies. I am very sorry that the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is not here to give us his experience. I


know how he talks about it. He would tell us that the conditions are not comparable at all, and that it is impossible for us to compete. Dundee is now being reduced to the manufacture of specialities. One of the specialities is linoleum hessians. It is the principal export. Of the jute goods exported from Dundee, 66 per cent. are linoleum hessians. All the warehouses in Dundee are chock-a-block with linoleum hessians, because deliveries, not only in this country but to our chief export market, America, have been stopped. There may be a few orders for linoleum hessians on the books. Manufacturers cannot continue to carry over a million yards of linoleum hessians in their warehouses. The difficulties of storing those huge rolls of goods are enormous, and it is probably easier for them to leave the stuff in the form of jute.
The same thing is going on in the carpet trade. I am sorry that there are no representatives of Kidderminster here to talk about that aspect of the matter because I hear that all the places are now running half-time on account of the imports of very cheap jute rugs from India. A few cheap rugs have also come in from Belgium, but I believe a duty is being used to correct that position a little. The basis of the cheaper carpet trade is jute twist, and if the carpet trade is knocked on the head it means more short-time in Dundee. Take the case of linoleums themselves. The orders for them are not coming in. There was a big rush of linoleums for America, but in this country the linoleum manufacturers are not nearly so busy, because there is not so much building going on. That is a serious thing.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would remind the hon. Member that the increase in the duty on carpets from Belgium is 3d. a yard, or 20 per cent., whichever is the higher, and that would be a legitimate claim for Dundee.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: As I have said, the trade in Dundee has been bad for a great number of years. The reserves of firms are in many cases eaten up, and they are beginning again to borrow from the banks, which is a bad thing. If something is not done by the Government we shall have another black area there, as surely as night follows day. All the people there will lose heart, and we shall see their chests falling in. They will not

as now, be able to look themselves in the face. They will have to draw the dole, and nobody in this country likes doing that. We are not a dole-drawing people The hon. Member for Dundee talked about the position of the harbour there. That will be seriously hit, and there will be higher harbour dues and higher rates, and we shall see Dundee trying to borrow money but unable to borrow it as cheaply as some other towns.
What is the good of having Protection in this country if we do not use it? I wish the Minister of Labour were here, because I do not know what he will say if he is to have another black area to look after. He has been getting on very well with his work, and will not like to have a setback of that character. We can all help to prevent such a setback by bringing enough pressure to bear on the Board of Trade to get them to put on quotas at once, in order to save the life of Dundee. It could be done by a stroke of the pen, and we should see 30,000 people, with probably 130,000 dependants, filled with hope once more. I wonder what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say about it. In the old days Chancellors of the Exchequer used to draw an enormous revenue from Dundee. The jute mills used to make a lot of money, and had to pay-their Income Tax, etc. I know that the hon. Member for Dunfermline hates revenue coming in from taxation, but where should we be without the revenue? We must get revenue for our Social services, if for nothing else.
I should also like to know what the fighting services are going to do. In the old days the Admiralty and the War Office used regularly to place contracts in Dundee for large quantities of goods. It has been said that further supplies essential in time of war could easily be got from Calcutta. My answer to that is "How long will you have to wait for them"? In the Great War it was a case of "Get us a million sand bags by the end of the week if you can." We should not get them so quickly from Calcutta. During the Great War 75 to 80 per cent. of the whole production of Dundee was concerned with essentially necessary war goods. Dundee always holds in its warehouses a nine months supply of jute, the raw jute, which can within a week's time be turned into whatever goods are wanted for the Army or the Navy. The goods


could not be got from Calcutta anything like as quickly. It is all very well to say "What about the supplies of raw jute"? As I have said, we should have at least nine months in which to replenish the stocks of raw jute; the existing nine months stocks would be enough to keep the Army going in the meantime. Nine months gives us good time in which to bring over fresh supplies of jute.
I am told that the trade was asked to make an agreement with the Calcutta mills. The Calcutta mills simply took up a non possumus attitude. They thought they could get away with it. I saw several people in Calcutta and I said, "We will take this matter to the House of Commons and press our case for all we are worth," and one of them said, "I am not surprised that you should do so. That is the proper thing to do if you have an interest in your people." Now, I think, they have rather "got the wind up," because I hear they are getting together. How did the present position out there arise? There were two lots of mills, those of the old combine, who had so many of their looms sealed, and the new native-owned mills, and these, as long as the combine kept looms sealed, were making fine profits. But the combine did not think that was good enough, and so they unsealed their looms, with the result that an enormous extra quantity of jute goods was manufactured in Calcutta, and nearly all of them found their way here. We were only a dumping ground. It looks to me as though the poor people in Dundee, who have an interest in this trade because it is their only means of livelihood, are to be sacrificed to a domestic squabble in Calcutta, and that we are going to agree to it.
It is not a question of high policy at all. If the Government would now put on a quota they would be doing the jute trade in Calcutta a great deal of good, because the manufacturers there would have to come to some arrangement for curtailing their production to what they could sell. They do not want to stock their products, any more than we here do. Further, it might compel the Government of India, over whom we have no control in domestic matters, to pass legislation reducing the hours of labour in the Calcutta jute mills. I am pretty certain that might happen. I should remark that no native works in the mills for more

than nine months on end. After that he goes up country, because he is a country-bred man and likes working in his field far better than in the mills. He could do that, and I should think he would be far happier, and be living a far healthier life. But there is no going back to the land for our poor people in Dundee. There is not the land, and they are not land born; they are born industrialists.
I beg the Government to exercise some courage in this matter not simply to turn the whole thing down and say, "You must make some agreement with Calcutta to stop the heavy import of goods." I cannot bear to think of the 30,000 people in Dundee being put out of work because we are afraid politically to act. It is a mean attitude for this country to take up towards decent people. They are our own people, our own flesh and blood, and we must look after them. We owe them a duty. Some Members may think there is a lot of difference between a diehard Conservative and a red-hot Socialist, but on many points there is entire agreement. All my life I have stood rather for the under-dog, according to my own political creed, and I hope that we have the same end in view.
A lot has been made of the sandbags; it was stated that 45,000,000 of them have been made in Dundee. That was the estimate, but it is only 4 per cent. of the annual production of Dundee and is not very much to be going on with. A great many of the factories in Dundee do not make that class of goods at all and will secure nothing. The sandbags go to the people who are in the light end of the trade. Who in this country will score by this huge importation of Calcutta goods? A few hundred people may be employed upon sandbags but as the bags are needed anyway those people can be employed in sewing Dundee cloth into bags. The other people who will score are the speculators and the merchants. All I can say is that I hope they are paying good Income Tax on their profits. At least that will be helping the revenue.
I have heard it said also that Dundee has not made out a good case. I have heard that said time and again, yet I think Dundee has a good case. I have gone into it personally very closely with my friends, and from what they tell me I am certain that that is so. I would say to the Board of Trade that if they do not think Dundee has a good case surely the


livelihood of 30,000 people merits the sending of a small deputation to Dundee in order to inquire. From the report of such a small committee I am sure the Board of Trade could take their courage in their hands and do what is absolutely necessary, put on some sort of quota to prevent this huge dumping of goods here from Calcutta. Delay is absolutely fatal, because I believe mills will shut down and not open within the next three or four months, unless the Board of Trade can at once take the necessary steps.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The Motion which is before the House falls into two parts. The first part calls attention generally to increasing importations from overseas and the second refers specifically to the jute industry of the United Kingdom. As one of the representatives of the City of Dundee I am naturally more concerned with the second part, but I should like to take a moment to answer what was said by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) in moving the Motion. He referred to some observations of mine during the Debate in this House last December upon the cost of living, and suggested that the figures I gave regarding our own tariff wall were misleading. It is true that he did not question the accuracy of the figures, and that the percentages I quoted included duties imposed purely for revenue purposes as well as duties imposed for protective purposes. I quoted those figures for purposes of comparison and I gave the House comparable figures for other countries, whose revenue duties would also be included in those figures.
He went on to suggest that our tariff wall was rather more moderate than that of any other European country and that it was approximately 7 per cent. of our retained imports. I know that he did not intend to do so, but I think he gave an entirely false picture with those figures. The incidence of a tariff is exceedingly difficult to work out. I would go to the highest authority I could find, Mr. Leake of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, who gave an address to the Royal Statistical Society on 15th June last, and said:
The incidence of duties imposed under the Import Duties Act, 1922, on manufactured goods rose from 18.5 per cent. to 19.4 per cent. between 1933 and 1934.
He went on to say that it fell to 19.1 per cent. when the iron and steel duties

were reduced recently. Later in his address he said that the reduction in some of the duties as a result of trade agreements had been offset by increases in other duties. It is therefore impossible to rely upon that figure of 7 per cent., which has also been given in the Press. I would just make one comment upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin. The Board of Trade are at the moment engaged in negotiating for trade agreements with India and the United States. A few days ago the governments of the world, including our own Government, received the Van Zeeland Report putting forward certain suggestions for clearing the channels of trade. If the principles advocated today by the hon. Gentleman were adopted, we could cease at once negotiating for commercial agreements. We could put the Van Zeeland Report on the scrap-heap, because practically all international trade would immediately come to a standstill.
The same thing would be true if the governments of the world were to adopt the principles of the Amendment which was proposed from above the Gangway. It seems to me that that Amendment is utterly fantastic. I gathered that the hon. Member who moved it had certain countries in mind, and that they were Japan, China, India and Czechoslovakia. I understand that the procedure was to be something like this: all those countries and others were to be invited to an international conference. They were then expected to fix standards of labour and wages in excess of those which now obtain in their countries, knowing that that would immediately lead to a cessation of their export trade. That is what the Amendment means, if it means anything at all. If the principles of the Amendment were adopted they would lead in any case to a complete embargo, for instance, of Indian imports. That is going very much further than anybody, even in Dundee, has suggested. I would add a further comment about the Amendment. We are told that we must keep out goods from any country with a lower standard of living, but that seems an extremely difficult comparison to make. I do not believe that you can make an exact comparison between standards of living in an Asiatic country and in a European country, because you have to take into account not only the wage rates,


but the very much lower needs and cost of living of the workers in Asiatic countries.
Having said that about the general aspect of the subject, I would like now to refer to what has occupied most of our time, the difficulties of the constituency for which I am the junior Member in this House, and of the district around it. It is true that we are dependent to a remarkable degree upon one industry. I hope that that will not always be so and that the workers of Dundee will not always have so many of their eggs in one industrial basket. I do not think anybody would deny that the collapse of that industry at the present time would mean that Dundee would immediately become the most derelict of depressed areas. My hon. Friend the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has already given the figures of Indian imports. The situation does not appear so very desperate if you look at the employment figures, which are higher now than they were a year ago, although they are lower than they have been in similar times during the last seven or eight years. As she pointed out, that position is very largely due to certain temporary causes, and to a large extent to the fact that increases in imports have, during the past year, been offset to some degree by an increase in exports. That is due to the temporary stimulus of the demand in the United States, which we cannot expect will recur.
My hon. Friend and other speakers have been good enough to refer in the course of the Debate to my fiscal views, and I want to make the position clear. I do not go back upon any vote that I have given in this House. I voted against the Import Duties Act, 1932, and against the Ottawa Agreements Act, and I should do the same again. I do not think that the principles to which my hon. Friend referred have lost any of their validity. What I have said, and what I say now, is that while we have a protective system I would not deny to my constituents their share in any advantages that that system may bring. At present they have all the disadvantages and none of the advantages. Like people in other parts of the country they have to bear the burden of the rising cost of living. The various fiscal devices of the Government have contributed, in the view of myself and my

hon. Friends, in some degree to that rise. It will always be a matter of controversy in this House, when we are dealing with tariff questions, whether the burdens outweigh the benefits, or vice versa, but the position of the people whom I represent is that they are getting all the burdens and practically none of the benefits.
Why is that? Why are they placed in what I think all hon. Members will admit is a position of extreme difficulty? It is not an accident. It is due to the deliberate policy of the Government, adopted five years ago. It is due to the policy of Ottawa, which amounted to this: In return for certain concessions in the tariffs of the Dominions we bound ourselves first of all to maintain certain tariffs against the rest of the world, and secondly, to permit the free entry of goods consigned from Empire countries. It followed, as it was bound to follow, that industries competing with foreign manufactures received protection against their competitors, but industries competing with the Dominions did not. The situation of which complaint has been made arises directly from the policy of the Ottawa Agreements, and was bound to arise as a result of those agreements. We have heard a number of speeches to-day, and I was rather struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin when he complained of imports not only from India, but from other parts of the Empire as well. He complained of the imports of rubber shoes from Canada—a rather remarkable thing, if I may say so. Not a single speaker in this Debate has raised the tattered banner that used to be known as Empire Free Trade.
With regard to the jute industry, it has already been made clear that the disparity in prices is due, not to anything that has happened in this country, but to events in Calcutta. It is due to the breakdown of any agreement between the two sections of mill-owners in India. In my opinion, for what it may be worth, that is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs, and if, as may happen in the future, agreement should be re-established between the mill-owners of India with regard to hours and with regard to the sealing up of looms, there would inevitably be a rise in prices; and of that rise in prices the United Kingdom industry would feel the benefit. But, apart from events of that kind, over which we can have no control, which may take place


in India, it seems to me that ultimately a satisfactory solution of this question can only come from an agreement between the industries themselves. The difficulty is that at the present time it does not appear to be possible to find any organisation in India which would be in a position to speak for the whole jute industry, and, therefore, at the present time the only possible agreement is one between the Governments.
If I may quote one precedent, when the Ottawa Agreement was made with New Zealand there was an annex to that agreement in which the New Zealand Government estimated their exports of frozen meat to this country for the next 12 months, giving an implied undertaking that that would be the quantity which they would send and which they would not exceed. I hope that the Board of Trade, in the negotiations with India, will consider whether it is possible to get a clause somewhat on those lines in an agreement with the Indian Government in relation to jute imports. I desire to emphasise this point. As the House may know, I have advocated it elsewhere. My hon. Friend was good enough to quote a speech which I made in Dundee last autumn, and I was very gratified to hear her quote it with approval, because, if I remember rightly, when she herself was speaking on a platform in Dundee she did not approve of it quite so strongly.
It seems to me that in this matter we have to consider, not only the present situation, but also the future of the jute industry. As many Members know, the great bulk of Indian imports at the present time is in the narrower cloths, but, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker, an important part of the Dundee trade is in the wider class, the linoleum hessians. I think it is correct to say that that represents now about 40 per cent. of the Dundee output. My hon. Friend has pointed out that up to the present time India has scarcely competed at all in that branch of the trade, but that there is no particular reason why she should not do so in the future, and the information that all of us who are interested in this matter receive is that attempts are being made in India to enter this branch of the industry and manufacture linoleum hessians. One would like to see some kind of agreement, preferably, of course, between the

industries, but, if that be not possible, between the Governments, that India will abstain from breaking into that branch of the industry, in which she has not hitherto competed. I am doubtful whether an agreement covering the whole world could be made between the two Governments, but might it not be possible to have an agreement between the two Governments that the Indians would not send here during the currency of the agreement any of these wider widths to which I have been referring? I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that that would make a great deal of difference at the moment; I think the effect on the present situation would be almost negligible; but I think an agreement of that kind would be of considerable value to the industry in the future. Of course I am not saying that this in itself would be sufficient.
The position of the jute industry has been, of course, a matter of very great concern to the people in and around Dundee during the last 12 months. Personally, I have always deprecated, in the speeches I have made there, the idea of using the big stick towards India, firstly because I do not believe in methods of that kind, and, secondly, because I think that, if all kinds of restrictions were put on by us in default of agreement, we ourselves would offer a very broad flank to retaliation. That may not be a matter of particular interest to people in the East of Scotland, but it is bound to be a matter of interest to the Board of Trade. That is why, in all the remarks I have made in Dundee on this subject, I have always endeavoured to emphasise the importance of reaching agreement if agreement can possibly be obtained. We appreciate, and I think the people in Dundee and district appreciate, that in these negotiations with the Indian Government the Board of Trade have to bear in mind, not only the interests of one industry, but the interests of a very large number of industries, some of which may compete with Indian goods in this country, but some of which are looking for a wider outlet in the Indian market. We appreciate that all these things have to be borne in mind by the Board of Trade, but I would like to conclude by expressing the hope that those who are in charge of these negotiations with the Indian Government will constantly have


regard to the peculiar position of the community of Dundee and the surrounding district, and their dependence in such a singular degree upon one industry.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am sure the House will have observed with satisfaction the marriage of ideas which has been demonstrated this afternoon between the two hon. Members for Dundee. The consummation of that marriage has taken a long time to come about. Those of us who are neighbours of Dundee have watched it with interest, I would almost say with rapt attention. The first approaches in this matter were made by the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) in 1931. It has taken the hon. Member opposite many years to respond, but I am sure all of us are very pleased that agreement has now been reached. The hon. Member made the statement that in a country with a protective system he would not deny to his constituents the advantages of that system. That is exactly the proposition that I and my hon. Friends on these benches have put before the House when we have pled the case of the farmers. I myself have emphasised the necessity for some greater protection against the importation of oats, potatoes, vegetables, and other agricultural produce. We have said that here is a vital industry in our land which is suffering from the dumping of foreign produce, and we have pleaded for some kind of protection on the ground that, as this country has adopted a protective system, our constituents should not be denied the benefits arising from it. On those occasions the hon. Member has consistently opposed us, but I am glad to observe to-day that, when it comes to a commodity on his own doorstep, he takes a completely different view, and turns round and says he would certainly give to his constituents the benefits of this system. We are all very happy to see his conversion, and I should not be surprised if he finds himself with us on this side of the House in a very short time, for, at last, he has been set upon the right path.
In these matters I have always acted upon the advice given by a very well known Liberal, for whose views the hon. Member will have great respect. He was talking to a meeting of farmers—I think

it was a meeting of the Farmers' Union—and he told them this:
Your movement, I know, is not a party one, and therefore you will be the more ready to allow me to point out, in fairness to those who, like myself, are convinced Free Traders, that it is no part of the Free Trade doctrine that we in this country are to sit helpless and inactive in the face of subsidised imports from foreign countries.
I think that that was an excellent statement. It was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), the hon. Member's leader. I regarded it as such an admirable statement that I have followed it ever since. He went on, however, to advocate a policy which even the National Government has never had the audacity to suggest. It was never suggested by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State when he was responsible for these matters and took such important steps. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland went on to say this:
When it can be proved that imports of oats or any other commodities are being brought into this country below the cost of production, we believe, not in tariffs "—
and, I should suppose, not in quotas—
but in absolute prohibition.
At that time, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to keep out all those potatoes, vegetables, and so on that came in and undercut our products.
The hon. Lady put the point very wisely when she said that fiscal principles had to give way to hard facts. The hard facts on this matter are that in 1931–32 this country was made the dumping ground for the spare products of every nation under the sun, and we were obliged, in accordance with the very principle expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, to take steps to protect our workers and our industries. Hon. Members on these benches, the National Liberals, never had the slightest hesitation in supporting the Government in those protective measures. We regarded them, and we still regard them, as emergency measures. We look forward to the day when the great walls that separate countries one from another will be lowered, and when free exchange of goods will prevail to the utmost extent. But in present circumstances we are bound to see that great damage is done in many cases by imported goods. Let me illustrate with one or two words with regard


to jute. I am interested in it because, as the hon. Member knows, many men and women who work in the jute mills in Dundee live in the salubrious air of the neighbouring county of East Fife; and, indeed, we have one or two small mills ourselves in that district. We know at first hand the great depression that exists in Dundee to-day, and we realise, as the hon. Member so eloquently said at the end of his speech, that Dundee and jute are peculiar in that jute is not only the major industry of Dundee, but is almost the sole substantial industry of the city. There are one or two other small trades, but jute really dominates the life of the Dundee people. Remove jute, and you will turn Dundee into the most depressed Special Area you can find anywhere in the country, for in so doing you will remove from Dundee the vital element in its life.
We do not ask that all exports of jute from India should stop; we ask for no prohibition; we recognise that there must be a continuance of trade between India und ourselves. We ask only that there should be some diminution of the flood of imports that has brought so much damage in recent years. The hon. Member speaking for the Labour Amendment would, as I interpret him, stop all exports from India. We do not ask that. In a normal year, like 1928 or 1929, the quantities of imports did not upset our market, and we invite the Government to bring imports back to that level. That is not a revolutionary proposal; it is not going to upset Indian trade. We ask the Board of Trade to take immediate steps, by agreement—I think that would be certainly the best way—or in some other way, to limit this flood, and control it so that we may pursue our trading life in Dundee. Dundee is a great city, with great traditions. It has around it a multitude of people: farmers, industrialists and others. A score or more of leading trades are dependent upon the prosperity of that city. If the Government refuse to give it the protection it requires they are going to injure all those trades. We feel, therefore, that we are entitled, not only to plead for, but to demand, protection for it chief industry from the Government of this country.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I intervene in this Debate because I happen to be a life governor of

the Dundee Institute of Arts and Technology. Recently, we sent a letter to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this jute question. Depression of the jute trade in Dundee affects us in the educational sense, because technical education in Dundee is built up on the jute industry. If that industry is not prosperous, the whole of the senior technical educational system suffers, and buildings, colleges and equipment will go to waste, while students who have attended the college courses and learned the technical part of their trade in Dundee will have to start again in later life in another trade.
The Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that one of the best ways to solve this problem would be by agreement, if that were possible, between India and Great Britain; but I venture to put various points to him which will go to show, I think, that India holds all the cards, so that it will be extremely difficult to get agreement. They have the advantage, first, in regard to wages; secondly, in regard to their hours of working, which are unlimited at the moment; and, thirdly, they hold the raw material. The whole of the raw material for the jute industry comes from Bengal, and there is an export tax imposed in India on the export of raw material to Dundee; so anybody who attempts to negotiate an agreement from this end is going to  in a weak position. If there is to be an agreement, it must be between the Government; and only by taking the whole range of trade between India and this country can a satisfactory arrangement be made. I want to emphasise from my local knowledge of Dundee the vital necessity of coming to an agreement with India on this matter at the earliest possible moment.
In a way, this is a new problem. Our old conception of the Dominions and Colonies was that they were mainly raw material producers, and that we and other Continental countries were the manufacturing nations. But this is one of the few cases where a Dominion product competes with European products. The question affects also, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), the rubber boot industry, and in future it may affect other industries. For instance, I believe that Indian locomotives are competing in the markets of the world on equal terms—and, in some cases, unequal


terms—with those in European countries. This is a problem which future Governments will have to look into much more closely, because it affects the whole question of Asiatic competition with European standards. The sooner a general line of policy is laid down on this question, the better it will be for this country and the Asiatic countries. It has been said that we should arrange it by tariffs, but I do not think that the imposition of tariffs without agreement with India would be effective, because India could easily raise the existing tax on raw materials to a point at which it would meet any tariffs we put on. In the same way, India could reply to any form of quota. Therefore, I think that agreement with India, which can be done only by the Government, covering the whole field of trade, is the only way in which satisfaction can be given to Dundee.
I will mention one other point. Dundee is not a Special Area, and any attempts that Dundee has been making in the past to attract other industries are being somewhat neutralised by the Government's efforts to attract industries to distressed areas. Therefore, this problem of a one-industry city like Dundee should have the greatest sympathy of the Government Dundee will be quite happy with a prosperous jute industry. It is purely a local and domestic problem for Dundee. We appeal with confidence to the Government to effect a settlement at the earliest possible moment.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: I intervene in the Debate because of the twofold character of the matter. My hon. Friend the Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said he wanted to devote little time to the more general question of manufactured foreign imports, and more time to the other part appertaining to the jute industry which so particularly affects Dundee. I want to detain the House only a few moments on that part of the Motion, and to make some further observations on the other part, which deals with importations in general. On the jute industry it seems manifest from the speeches of all hon. Members this afternoon that a joint appeal is being made to the Government. There is a confluence of opinion on this from hon. Members who differ on most other matters. Before I leave this specialised topic, I would ask my hon. Friend the Junior

Member for Dundee, when he says that we should let negotiations take the place of what is recommended in the Motion, how long he suggests that this trade, surrounded by these difficulties, should wait for those negotiations? Does he or does he not support the Motion, in asking for help for an industry carried on in the constituency which he represents?

Mr. Foot: The Motion itself refers to negotiations, and what should be done in negotiations.

Mr. Lyons: And urges
the need for safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry against the competition of Indian jute goods.

Mr. Foot: Read on.

Mr. Lyons: Certainly I will read on. It
urges that the need for safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry against the competition of Indian jute goods should be placed in the forefront of the resumed negotiations with the Government of India.
And, as I said, every speaker has pleaded for some immediate action. As one who represents a constituency which has in many ways been largely helped by protective duties, but could be, and should be, helped still more, I would ask my hon. Friend, is it his political philosophy that protection should be given merely to the industry which is the mainstay of the constituency he represents, or should we introduce a system of protection which would be of benefit to all industries, many of which have already benefited during the six or seven years of National Government? Or would he abolish all such safeguards?
Let me turn to the other part of the Motion, in which the hon. Gentleman began by calling attention to the increasing difficulties of certain industries in this country owing to increasing importations from overseas. We have had since 1932 a new and different fiscal system in this country. I suggest to the Government, while fully appreciating the benefit industry as a whole has derived from that changed system, that the time has arrived when we might survey the whole position and the procedure and machinery which exist. Every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon has, in good, robust, protectionist spirit, supported the home trade and demanded a continuance of protection for workpeople engaged in


industry in this country. I suggest to the Government that industry as a whole, in face of the importations that now exist, does not get that measure of protection which could be obtained. It is perfectly idle not to protect the finished product of every industry after you have protected the workers in those industries stage by stage throughout their whole course of work. We have the Workmen's Compensation and Factory Acts and all kinds of social services and pensions and trade union and legislative machinery for protecting the worker right through the processes, and it is perfectly idle at any time to allow the result of all that effort and safety to be at the mercy of sweated competition from anywhere and everywhere.
Many of us took the view in 1931 that this was no longer a matter of mere political principle. It was a question of economic expediency, and those who supported the view then, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), and who support it now, can look back with every satisfaction at the course which they took. If ever a thing was justified in the fiscal system, it was the change which the present Government introduced and the benefit which they now see accruing through it. Those of us who want to see that machinery tightened, and still more protection in view of the realities of the situation, do not put the suggestion forward in a carping spirit of criticism, but because we believe that in face of the unemployment we still have, and the knowledge that we can produce the finest craftsmen in the world working under conditions which are without doubt the best in the world, and which we want to maintain and to improve, we think it is grossly wrong that there should be that vast amount of imported goods coming into this country which interfere with our home market and with our own industries. It is preserving unemployment where a proper system of tariffs would reduce unemployment, and it is really interfering with the whole system which was introduced in 1932.
The city which I represent has a worldwide fame for its hosiery. It makes hosiery under conditions which are the pride of the country and a finished article, which I say without any hesitation at all is the pride of the world. Yet I find a year ago to-day, when I asked a

question of the President of the Board of Trade as to the quantities of hose, stockings and knitted underwear imported into the United Kingdom from Japan for the year ended 31st December, 1936, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd February, 1937, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Transport gave this statement:
Statement showing the quantity of certain descriptions of hosiery imported into the United Kingdom and registered during the year 1936 as consigned from Japan (including Formosa):
Knitted, netted or crocheted goods (hosiery): Stockings and hose of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton, 905,197 dozen pairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1937; col. 1431, Vol. 319.]
I would ask my right hon. Friend who represents the Board of Trade to-day whether he would go into the city of Leicester and offer any justification for that quantity of goods coming into this country to the detriment of the British worker who is protected under conditions that do not exist either in Japan or anywhere else abroad? I was told at the same time that of underwear of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton, 622,800 dozen pairs came into this country during that one year. What is this doing? It is allowing goods made in a foreign country at a labour cost of something like 1s. 6d. sterling a day to undermine the trade and industry and the safeguarded conditions of the workers in this country. Those of us who have seen the wonders that have been worked in our trade and employment at home by the operation of a control of imports express every appreciation that we can for the result that it has given us. When we see this kind of thing happening, and one trade after another adversely affected, and we see goods sold in Leicester market place, made under appalling conditions abroad, at a price less than the costs of production in this country, we say to ourselves "We can do better with the tariffs that we have; we can so overhaul our machinery in the light of six or seven years' experience as to put an end to this unsatisfactory condition." We believe that we should make marked inroads into the amount of unemployment that now exists. Such goods are not cheap. Before the tariff system was introduced one industry in my constituency—the British typewriter industry—was at a very low ebb. To-day behind the tariff wall a better machine, sold at a lower price, is made


under the nicest conditions that can be found in industry and with a very large employment of persons having a spending capacity in the city of Leicester. They are still meeting competition which is far too great.
These are all matters that ought to be surveyed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee who have power on their own initiative, under the Act which established that body, to survey any of the conditions to which I have referred, and any industrial questions that create a need for investigation, and attention should be directed to many of these matters. I hope that it will not be said that I am trying to say a word of criticism against the gentlemen who form that tribunal and the work which they are doing. After all, the real basis and intent of the tariff must be the responsibility of this House. We can say, quite properly, that we will give authority to an outside tribunal in a position almost of judicial independence to hear the case and to hear the opposition and come to a decision on merits outside any Parliamentary pressure. But the basis of the tariff, whether it be one for revenue purposes or one that is going to be of real vital use in protecting trade, must be the responsibility of this House, from which there can be no abdication by the machinery that now exists. Policy must be the policy of Parliament. When the employers in the industry or the employed go to that tribunal and ask for an increased tariff, they may be hedged and beset by all kinds of difficulties. We find that the case they present and the details which they give are at once open to foreign manufacturers who are opposing the tariff in order to have their observations upon the case that has been put. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the fairest way and one which would work and operate most efficiently in the interests and protection of our home trade and employment would be to shift some of the onus from the British employer and put it more upon the foreign manufacturer who wants to oppose British industry in British markets. Let him show why a tariff should be kept low or should be reduced. Let it be a speedy and efficient safeguard and let the British maker have every reasonable opportunity in that home market. Let the real burden of proof that the tariff should be reduced or lowered be put upon the foreign importer

rather than upon the British industrialists to refute.
It is a remarkable thing that when you look at the figures for imports and exports, and the various ways in which the importations are composed, you see a very substantial increase in raw materials. That is a very satisfying feature and speaks a great deal for the trade of this country working behind the machinery of protection provided by this Government. Nothing that I am saying now or that I say hereafter I hope will minimise my appreciation of that. It is a remarkable feature that there is a vast increase in the importation of raw material for home trade. It is also remarkable that, notwithstanding what was said by those who do not hesitate to criticise matters of which they knew so little, under the tariff British exports increase year after year, and that Empire trade has increased enormously. These are some of the incidents of the tariff, but it is not so satisfactory to see the big rise in imported manufactured goods at a time when we have a block of unemployed in this country, fit, ready, trained and willing to do the work and make the very articles that are coming into this country from foreign lands where they have no such conditions and safeguards that we have here. And all increased production means lower costs.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment urged a system of prohibition. The spirit underlying that good, sound, protective argument is not one with which I and my hon. Friends wish entirely to be dissociated, but we have to ask ourselves whether it is a practical policy which can now be adopted as against the more easy and ready policy suggested in the Motion. My hon. Friends, I believe, would join with me in saying that with the opinion put forward by the hon. Member who moved the Motion we would agree. I suppose that everyone of us believes, in the profoundest sense of the word, in free trade. We would all like to see free trade throughout the world with the complete elimination of all tariff barriers and restrictions. What we do not want to see is a return to a system of one-way traffic in trade; all the goods coming in and barriers against any goods going out. We have to face the realities and say, though we should like the things I have just indicated, at the moment they are not


possible. No one else will do this. We lead every time in reducing tariffs and trying to increase the channels of trade between one country and another. While we have to face the difficulties of the day we must give reasonable protection to those industries upon which the whole of our trade and employment and social service must depend.
May I remind the House of what is happening to one industry in particular? It is an industry which is not new to this country but one which has been the subject of many political differences. I refer to the fabric glove industry. It has been the sufferer of a great deal of political discord. It has had safeguarding duties put on and safeguarding duties taken off, but it is the fact that while it had a duty the industry improved and employed a considerable number of hands, and was making headway. It was a very severe shock when the duty was taken off. It has tried to get the duty back. It has gone before the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Questions have been asked in this House as to the refusal of the duty and the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was" The Import Duties Advisory Committee gave a decision against it, and I cannot tell you the reasons why. It is not the practice. "When the Tribunal says in effect" We have heard your case but we are not going to give you a tariff, although without it you suffer, "is it too much for the industry to say to the Tribunal, "Will you indicate the reasons which prompted you to give this decision, so that we can put our house in order and put ourselves in possession of the qualifications so that we can come to you in three months' time knowing that we have made good the difficulty?" What can we do to put ourselves right with the only answer we get in this House from the Board of Trade that it is not usual for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to give any reasons for the decision which they take? That is not the kind of thing which tends to help British industry, to re-establish itself.
The industry of which I am speaking has never had a real chance. In 1925 it had a duty imposed for five years. Then there came the general strike followed by an avowedly free-imports Government, and next came the end of the duty. It is now in a parlous condition at a time

when similar foreign products are being sold in large quantities in this country. We feel that while these circumstances exist our machinery is not being utilised to the best advantage. It should be reviewed. We believe that inside the limits of the machinery which now exist a good deal could be done. It is no good saying, as one hon. Member suggested, that this system is protection for capital. That is nonsense. The protection of an industry is a protection of all the people engaged in the industry. When we make all the conditions that we do make, and which we want to maintain and to improve upon, for safeguarding the standard of life of those who work in an industry, we want to pay some regard to the safeguarding of the products of their work in that industry.
I make this appeal. I have quoted only a few instances, but there are many others. The Government showed their good will in granting a tariff by the Act of 1932. They imposed a larger duty temporarily in 1931 by the Abnormal Importations Act. I appeal to them still more to co-operate with industry and to let it be clearly known that no duty will be reduced without consultation with the industry. Let the industry know when and for what reason the Import Duties Advisory Committee comes to a decision against its proposals; and above all, assure to British industry and those who work in British industry a more immediate, and if I may say so, a more general measure of protection from what is the unfair competition, reconsidered in the light of experience in the years when so much has been proved.

7.1 p.m.

Sir Charles Barrie: In supporting this Motion I do so as one who has been intimately associated with the trade of Dundee all his life, particularly on the shipping side. There is one aspect of this matter with which I desire to deal, apart altogether from the general aspect raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), and that is its effect on shipping interests. At present the fact that so little raw jute is coming from Calcutta is having a very bad effect on the revenue of the port and on the number of ships arriving there from Calcutta. The revenues of the harbour are going down, and this means that the dues on vessels in other trades will have


to be increased. Already the Dundee harbour authorities have indicated that that will happen. The effect of that will simply be that vessels in other trades will be charged heavier dues than would otherwise be charged, and generally the whole finances of the board will be demoralised. Some 1,200 men at least find employment at the port and, with the reduction in the imports of raw jute, it is clear that unemployment at the harbour and in connection with the jute industry is bound to result. It is manifest from all we have heard from the two Members for Dundee and from those with a knowledge of this industry who have supported them that something has to be done, and I think the chances are that the Government appreciate that fact and intend to help in every way they possibly can.
There is one aspect of this matter which has not been mentioned in this Debate, and that is the position in Calcutta itself. I have some knowledge personally of the Calcutta position, and I know that if the Government here press hard enough there is just a possibility that they might encourage the manufacturers in Calcutta to come to some agreement among themselves. That done, the whole of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Members for Dundee would disappear overnight. It is well known exactly what happened and what has been the main cause of this difficulty. The Mill Association broke up, and the result was that the mills, instead of working from 40 to 54 hours a week, have been working in some cases 100 hours. The surplus that has come from that production has been sent to this country and, although it is only 8 per cent. or so of the total production of Calcutta, nevertheless it has completely upset the Dundee jute trade. As I have said, with a little effort from the Government those in Calcutta might be encouraged again to come to an agreement among themselves. If they did so the production of Calcutta would at once go down; it would go down not only 8 per cent., but a great deal more. The surplus which has been manufactured in Calcutta has come to this country, and if by this means we can keep it down the position in Dundee will then be secure. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Members who have raised this matter to-day should depart from what they have suggested, but I think that another way,

and possibly the best way in the end, would be for our Government, in conjunction with the Government in Calcutta, to get an arrangement made with the jute mills there, whereby the hours at present worked can be reduced to a more or less normal number, namely, 54. By that means the production would be reduced, and all would then be well in Dundee.
In conclusion, I would like to return to the position from which I started in connection with the shipping industry. Every year 200,000 tons of jute comes from Calcutta by steamer. The amount is curtailed at the present moment, because manufactured goods are coming here instead of raw jute, and of course not in the same quantity, and to that extent the shipping trade of Dundee is prejudiced. If something is not done, I foresee in Dundee not only chaos in the jute industry, but chaos in the shipping trade and the port. I suggest to the Government, therefore, that not only should they bear in mind the question of protecting the Dundee jute industry and seeing that it gets a fair share of trade as against Calcutta, but they ought immediately to get into touch with the Government of India and see whether something cannot be done to bring these people together and get agreement.

7.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I think it was stated in the "Times" newspaper this morning that the age of chivalry is not dead, and the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) for having used his luck in the Ballot to achieve an object in which a great many people in the House had promised their help, and that was to enable the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) to bring before the House the Motion which we were unable to debate, under peculiarly tragic circumstances, a few months ago. I might make bold to say that this afternoon's Debate has been the best Private Member's Motion day that we have had for a very long time, for the simple reason that there has been a minimum of Front Bench intervention. I am very glad indeed that everybody who was anxious to address the House on this important subject was able to get in before the


inevitable rising of the Government spokesman.
The Debate has ranged over a very wide field, and it would take a far longer time than I have at my disposal to answer the speech of the Mover alone. There are, as has been said, two aspects of the Motion on the Paper: first of all, the large general question of imports from low-wage standard countries in relation to trade agreements; and, secondly, the particular subject of the competition of Indian jute goods with the products of Dundee. The hon. Lady in particular painted a most moving and eloquent picture of the state of affairs in Dundee at the present time. It was good to see the two Members representing Dundee in agreement to a certain extent, although I should have hesitated to draw the conclusions that were drawn by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart).
I should like to say to both hon. Members for the burgh, also to the whole House, that the Government fully appreciate the particular difficulties of Dundee. There is not the slightest need, if I may say so, to send a special commissioner in order to inform the Board of Trade of the situation. The difficulties have been explained by a number of deputations, representing, as I think should always be the case, all sections of the industry and representing the workpeople as well as the employers. It is no secret that it is the immense expansion of imports of piece goods and sacks, principally from India, in the last two years which has placed Dundee in a position which is causing that city such anxiety. I believe it is true to say that the increased imports from India are not wholly due to the replacement of Dundee goods by Indian goods, but rather to the replacement of other kinds of containers by Indian bags on account of their extreme cheapness.
I do not wish to conceal from the House that imports have increased so rapidly that the prospects for Dundee must be regarded as bad unless some means can be found for dealing with this increasing flow of imports from India. But I do think that the hon. Lady in her anxiety to put pressure on the Government was perhaps a little less than just to the great efforts which have been made by the industry in the last few years. Despite these difficulties, we all

appreciate that the jute industry, by means of new methods and new machinery, has been enabled up to the present time to hold its own. The production of jute cloth in this country for the year 1937, judged by the retained imports of raw jute and the state of employment is as high as it has been for many years. The situation in regard to production last year is probably as good as in any year since 1930. The unfortunate part of the situation is that the returns from sales are very much lower.
Another sign of the tenacity and resilience of the jute industry is the fact that it has been able not only to maintain but even to increase the export of British jute goods. In 1936, 122,000,000 square yards were exported. Last year the total went up 12 per cent. to 137,000,000. I fully appreciate the reasons, which have been mentioned by more than one speaker in the Debate, for this rise. I hope they are not all on such a temporary basis as the emergency demands from America. But, at any rate, we must admit that up to the present moment the position of the jute industry has been held.
The hon. Lady has already mentioned something that the Government have been able to do as a temporary measure of alleviation. An immense number of sandbags are required for defence purposes, and the orders for a large number of these have been placed in Dundee. They are employing more than 4,000 operatives until the end of March, and I have no hesitation in saying that there are prospects of further substantial orders. Of course, we must face the fact that if the trade had to depend upon defence orders its prospects would be very precarious. It must look for its long-term future to finding some source of civil requirements.
I agree with the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot)—and this so seldom happens that it ought to be put on record—that the best solution would be an agreement made not between Government and Government, but between the United Kingdom industry and the industry in India. Several other hon. Members stressed that point. There can be not the least doubt that on those lines we must try to find a solution. The Board of Trade have done their utmost to bring the industries together. We have arranged talks, but so far they have been unsuccessful. I was very glad to hear from the


speech of the hon. Member for Southampton (Sir C. Barrie) that he, with all his experience, takes the view that there is still not only a prospect, but a good prospect, of doing something upon these lines. So far as the negotiations with India are concerned Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan has returned to this country and the discussions on certain outstanding questions are now in progress. Everything that has been said in this Debate by those who have pleaded so eloquently for Dundee must be heard and considered by the persons who are going to negotiate on both sides. There is no danger whatever of the jute question being overlooked in the negotiations which are proceeding with the Government of India.
The House will realise not only the difficulty but the danger of anyone in my position attempting to go into a detailed statement in regard to the negotiations which are at present going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) drew attention to the fact that there are a great many other irons in the fire besides jute. There is the question of cotton which he mentioned, among many other things. If the House accepts the Motion, as I am going to ask it to do, because the Government are prepared to accept it, I hope the hon. Lady will understand that the words on the Order Paper with regard to putting the jute question in the forefront of our negotiations mean what they say, and we intend to "leave no avenue unexplored and no stone unturned" to press the matter forward.
Before I come to the Amendment, I should like to turn to the general question of imports from countries with low-wage standards. The House must bear in mind that any policy of discriminating between one country and another would cut right across the whole principle of the most-favourednation clause. I know that there is a school of thought in this House and in the country which believes that there would be more to be gained by doing away with these most-favourednation clauses than would be lost in the process. I can tell the House, with such authority as I derive from the position which I hold that repeated examinations, and I believe entirely objective examinations, incline the Board of Trade to take the contrary view. To discriminate against one particular country in respect

of one particular kind of goods because their wage standards were in our opinion inadequate would cut across the most-favourednation system and destroy what we believe is one of the most essential elements in our overseas trade policy. The same thing applies in regard to putting on restrictions or prohibitions.
I was extremely interested, as I always am interested, in the speech made by the hon. Member for Hitchin. His speech was comprehensive and clear and was magnificently supplied with statistics. I appreciate the tribute he paid to the tariff policy of the Government. Anybody has only to look at the results, which are available to any seeker for knowledge, to realise that the tariff system has been an enormous success. I must, however, correct what is perhaps a wrong impression of my own. It seemed to me that the burden of my hon. Friend's speech was that we should put on as many more tariffs as were required to reach the position that any goods of the sort that we could make here should be stopped from coming in. Ever since the tariff policy was put into operation in 1932 by the National Government the object, as I have always understood it, has been to use the tariff as a long-term weapon in order to increase the flow of overseas trade. Therefore, I cannot subscribe for one moment to the doctrine that it is necessary to ban altogether the imports of manufactured goods. Any increase in the flow of international trade will be for the benefit of all; but we ourselves stand to benefit more than any other country because we are the greatest maritime and carrying nation in the world.
It should also be put on record that an increase in the amount of retained imports, in the situation in which this country finds itself at the present time, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would invite the House to look at the figures of the retained imports into this country between 1931 and last year. Retained imports of food, drink and tobacco went up from £400,000,000 to £420,000,000; manufactured articles only from £245,000,000 to £250,000,000; but raw materials rose from £150,000,000 to £280,000,000. That point has been already mentioned but it is well that the House should have the figures and should understand that the tariff has substantially achieved one of its prime objects, which was to increase the amount of work in this country, which in


turn has necessitated greater imports of raw materials.
There is one further point on the tariff policy. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) said that he was not going to criticise the Imports Duty Advisory Committee; but he proceeded to subject them to a certain amount of criticism, not personally but in relation to the position that they occupy in our general tariff scheme. I hope he will forgive me if I remind him that one of the essential elements in the tariff policy, as put through this House by the National Government, and one of the reasons why it has been so successful and a reason which has conduced to its smooth operation, has been the fact that the actual recommending of a tariff on particular objects has been in the hands of a committee of this kind.

Mr. Lyons: I referred to the work of the Committee as a judicial body outside this House, but my point was that the question of policy should be a matter for this House.

Captain Wallace: One of the great advantages that has followed from our tariff policy has been the trade agreements. If one looks at the results we find that between 1932 and 1937 our exports to the Ottawa countries went up 68.6 per cent.; to foreign countries with whom we had trade agreements, excluding those that merely provided for non-discrimination, the figure was 45 per cent.; and to other foreign countries only 28 per cent.
Now let me come to the Amendment, in the few minutes that remain. I was extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) was not able to move the Amendment, owing to illness, and I regret sincerely the absence of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I think he would have been a little more cautious in moving the Amendment. The hon. Member for St. Rollox

(Mr. Leonard) did his best to get the Mover of the Amendment out of an awkward jam. It is, however, on record in to-day's Debate that Socialist economic policy is a policy of prohibition. There is certainly one gentleman who will be very disheartened to read that part of this afternoon's Debate, and that is M. van Zeeland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) elicited from the Mover of the Amendment the perfectly clear and unqualified statement that this Labour policy would prohibit imports from any country with a lower wage standard than ours.

Mr. Thorne: With a qualification.

Captain Wallace: Presumably, agriculture must come in. That policy is going to stop Indian rice from coming in, South American meat, bananas, all Chinese goods, practically everything from Russia, and cane sugar. These are a few of the results that have occurred to me. If that policy were pursued to its logical conclusion the United States of America would cease to import anything at all. I was glad to hear the hon. Member from the Liberal benches expose the Amendment. If that is the policy of the Labour party I should like to know what their position is in regard to the great Liberal petition and what any opponent who may come forward in my constituency will say about the cost of living agitation. It is without hesitation that I ask the House to reject the Amendment, which the Junior Member for Dundee described as fantastic, and to put on record the Resolution which was so ably moved and seconded.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 115.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bull, B. B.
Crooke, Sir J. S.


Ballour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Butcher, H. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Butler, R. A.
Cross, R. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Carver, Major W. H.
Crossley, A. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Channon, H.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Cruddas, Col. B.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
De Chair, S. S.


Blair, Sir R.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Denman, Hon. R. D


Brass, Sir W
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Denville, Alfred




Dodd, J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Loftus, P. C.
Salt, E. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Savery, Sir Servington


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Eastwood, J. F.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Eckersley, P. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Smith. Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Magnay, T.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Emery, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Spens, W. P.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fildes, Sir H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, S.


Findlay, Sir E
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morgan, R. H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Furness. S. N
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro, P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Granville, E. L.
Nall, Sir J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Grimston, R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Touche, G. C.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Patrick, C. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hambro, A. V.
Peake, O.
Turton, R. H.


Hannah, I. C.
Peat, C. U.
Wakefield, W. W.


Harbord, A.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hepworth, J.
Radford, E. A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Higgs, W. F.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Holmes, J. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hunter, T.
Rankin, Sir R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rickards. G. W. (Skipton)



Law. R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leech, Sir J. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sir Arnold Wilson and Miss Horsbrugh.


Lees-Jones, J.
Rowlands, G.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Milner, Major J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muff, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, Agnes
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Barr, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Parker, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Benson G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W


Bromfield, W.
Hicks, E. G.
Pritt, D. N.


Buchanan, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cape, T.
Hollins, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ridley, G.


Cove, W. G.
John, W.
Riley, B.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Daggar, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Rothschild, J. A de


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirby. B. V.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Day, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sanders, W. S.


Dobbie, W.
Lathan, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton. T. M.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lee, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Lunn, W.
Sorensen. R. W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, G, (Ince)
Stephen, C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McGovern, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mander, G. le M.
Thorne, W.


Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G.
Thurtle, E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxton, J.
Tinker, J. J.







Tomlinson, G.
Westwood, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Walkden, A. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Walker, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)



Watkins, F. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Leonard and Mr. Watson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

BOMBING OF CIVILIANS.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the growing horror of aerial bombardment of defenceless civilians should be expressed in an international agreement to co-operate in its prohibition, and urges His Majesty's Government to exert its influence to this end.
The House will observe that the Motion is drafted in quite general terms. It is also worth noting that it is mainly in the form of a declaration. I am sorry that by reason of the short notice it has been almost impossible for hon. Members to put an Amendment on the Order Paper if they had so desired, but I hope none the less that no Amendment will be handed in, for I think I am expressing the desire of the whole House in submitting the Motion, and I am going to ask for the unanimous approval of the House. I ask for that approval because I think it is desirable that the British House of Commons, speaking as it is entitled to do on behalf of the British people, should give utterance to its detestation of the horrible massacres which accompany aerial bombing. I am sure that the unanimous view of the House is that it is a crime against humanity and a reproach to civilisation that these outrages should continue. Almost every day brings further news of these ghastly and fiendish attacks upon defenceless and innocent people. It is surely time that the peoples of the world should cry a halt to this horrible business, for let us be perfectly clear about it, unless we do abolish it, the disastrous events which we have witnessed in the last year or two are but a feeble foretaste of what is in store for the world if by some unfortunate chance the most powerful nations become engaged in a life and death struggle. I trust, therefore, that no dissentient voice will be raised in this House when you, Mr. Speaker, put the Motion to the House to-night.
I think that, perhaps, it is also worth making this point, that even if the Motion is carried unanimously that fact ought not to be misunderstood or misrepresented abroad. Such a Motion, as I conceive it, is not at all an indication of weakness; it is not an indication of selfishness nor is it an indication of cowardice. If any nation in the European continent can afford to take the initiative in this matter I submit that it is Britain, for Britain can undoubtedly, if she so desired, secure for herself unchallengeable superiority amongst the nations of Europe. But because of her fortunate position, because of her enormous resources and her potential strength, Britain can, I think, with the greatest disinterestedness take the initiative in this matter. Happily the House can feel fortified in approaching a discussion of the Motion by the very wise utterance of M. Chautemps, the French Prime Minister, yesterday. It is quite obvious that the head of the French Government, and doubtless his colleagues also, are feeling, as all hon. Members are feeling, that a new and supreme effort should be made in order to bring to an end as speedily as possible these repeated outrages on defenceless people. I would also ask the House to permit me to make this point. I think we must assume that other nations in Europe are not indifferent to the horrors that are involved in an aerial bombardment.
I have from time to time devoted a good deal of study to the proceedings of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference and that study has disclosed how general was the desire, particularly among the European nations represented at the Conference, to tackle the question of air armaments. Moreover, when the general discussion of the Disarmament Conference began, in February, 1932, so strong was that feeling that a series of proposals with a view to strengthening the provisions relating to air armaments embodied in the Draft Disarmament Convention was proposed and discussed. It is worth noting—for, after all, we must approach this problem in some spirit of optimism and in the belief that we can get much more support than may perhaps appear possible


on the surface—that on 23rd July, 1932, the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference adopted, by 40 votes to 2, with only 8 abstentions, a resolution which contained, among other things, this first clause:
Air attack against the civilian population should be absolutely prohibited.
I have already indicated to the House that I desire to secure a unanimous declaration from it to-night, but the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who I believe intends to speak in the Debate, will forgive me if I make one controversial point. I am bound to say that the reservation which our own Government made as to bombing for police purposes in certain outlying regions in the Draft Convention submitted by the British Government in March, 1933, seemed to me to be disastrous then and to have been proved to have been disastrous in its consequences. It is true that in July of the same year, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the Government appreciated the reaction to that reservation, declared in the House that that reservation would not be allowed to stand in the way of securing a Convention in this matter, but that declaration was endorsed at Geneva only in November, 1933. I am afraid that the mere fact of the Government having made that reservation had very serious consequences upon the course of the discussions upon air disarmament. I said that a study of the discussions proves what a very large measure of agreement would have been possible if the situation had been properly handled at that time. However, that is not the subject of the Motion to-night, and I will leave the matter at that point; but I repeat that I consider that it was a tragedy that the Air Commission which was set up by the Disarmament Conference did not even complete its work, in spite of the very substantial measure of agreement which had already been manifested during the discussions.
Had the Air Commission completed its work, we might perhaps—I do not say that we necessarily would—have been spared what has happened in the world since then. Crime upon crime and iniquity upon iniquity have been presented to the eyes of the world. We are not now in the realm of speculation; the world knows what a dreadful thing is involved in the bombing of defenceless citizens. At

the risk of harrowing the feelings of hon. Members, I will read one or two passages from Mr. Steer's book, entitled "The Tree of Gernika: A Field Study of Modern War." I believe that Mr. Steer was in Spain, and was the representative of the "Times" there. I will read from page 238 to show the sort of situation that arose when the bombing aeroplanes appeared:
An escort of Heinkel 51's, the same perhaps that had molested us that afternoon, were waiting for this moment. Till now they had been machine-gunning the roads round Gernika, scattering, killing or wounding sheep and shepherds. As the terrified population streamed out of the town they dived low to drill them with their guns. Women were killed here whose bodies I afterwards saw. It was the same technique as that used at Durango on 31st March, nearly a month back.
Later, Mr. Steer says:
It was then that Gernika was smudged out of that rich landscape, the province of Vizcaya, with a heavy fist. It was about five-fifteen. For two hours and a half flights of between three and 12 aeroplanes, types Heinkel III and Junker 52, bombed Gernika, without mercy and with system. They chose their sectors in the town in orderly fashion, with the opening points east of the Casa de Juntas and north of the arms factory. Early bombs fell like a circle of stars round the hospital on the road to Bermeo; all the windows were blown in by the divine efflatus, the wounded militiamen were thrown out of their beds, the inner fabric of the building shook and broke.
That, in brief, is the story of the bombardment.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Was Mr. Steer there at the time?

Mr. Morgan Jones: I presume that he writes of what he saw. I am not at the moment trying to make a case for one side or the other; my object is to show what aerial bombardment involves. I will now read from page 240, where there are described the results and consequences:
Mercifully, the fighters had gone. They no longer glanced down to mutilate the population in movement and chase them across the open fields. The people were worn out by noise, heat and terror; they lay about like dirty bundles of washing, mindless, sprawling and immobile. There was nothing to save in Gernika but the few old mattresses and pillows, kitchen tables and chairs which they had dragged out of the fire. By seven-thirty that evening fire was eating away the whole of crowded little Gernika but the Casa de Juntas and the houses of the Fascist families. These, being wealthier than the others, lived in stone mansions apart from the rest of the people; their properties did not catch the


infection of the running fire, even when under pressure of the wind it stretched its savage arms to stroke them.
I do not make those quotations as a contribution on the Spanish situation, but merely to show what the modern bombardment of defenceless people involves. If we turn our thoughts to the Far East, we are confronted with a similar situation. Tens of thousands of innocent and defenceless people are bombed for no apparent reason; there are the same ghoulish operations in the Far East as in the nearer parts of Europe. Is it not time that the world cried "Enough"? For whom do we plead? Is it inappropriate to say a word for the old? After all, they are the people who have served their day and generation; for them the labourer's task is nearly over. Is it too much to ask that they be allowed to live the rest of their life in peace? And what of the young, the children? Have they no claims? Wherein have they erred? What crime have they committed? Life lies before them, and they are entitled to have their chance like the rest of us. Why should they have this ghastly dew rained upon their heads in the twinkling of an eye? Why should they not be spared this ghoulish destruction?
I do not offer this Motion in the belief or with the suggestion that other forms of war are tolerable. I beg the House to understand that I make no such suggestion. War is horrible, whatever form it may take; war is a cruel, bestial, bloody business, and the sooner we get rid of it the better. And after all, to get rid of war is the only way of curing this fearful evil. We must banish war. We must abandon the pursuit of destruction and seek the way of peace. Since the last War at any rate, we in this country have been spared these dreadful invasions, and in some degree perhaps we can take an objective view in this matter. Surely, our influence is not absolutely dead in Europe. I beg and pray of the Government that they ally themselves with this new gesture from France and approach any other Government which is prepared to lend a listening ear to them, so that now, in good time, we may be spared the dreadful visitations that curse the people of Spain and other parts of the world. I believe that in submitting this Motion to the House, although it does not go nearly as far as this party would

like, we shall perhaps induce other nations to plant their feet firmly upon the path that leads to peace.

8.0 p.m.

Sir H. Croft: I am sure the House will agree that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has moved this Motion in such a manner as to command the general sympathy of hon. Members, to whatever party they may belong. If, on one matter of controversy, which he appeared to me to raise, I ventured to ask him a question in the course of his speech, it was because there must be some differences about this question in relation to the great struggle which is proceeding not so far away. I propose to refer very briefly to that matter later, but I wish to say at the outset that I am certain that the hon. Gentleman this evening at any rate—perhaps it is not always so—was voicing the opinion of the people of this country when he said that they and probably he might have added the people throughout the Empire, loathed and detested this new form of warfare. I think we may also say—and I hope no foreigner will regard this as a claim for any particular virtue for ourselves—that when the great War broke out we never dreamt of bombing open towns and civilians and only contemplated counter-action when that form of frightfulness was employed against our own people in this country. I am certain that any man who has lived for day after day, and month after month, and even year after year, under constant bombardment, whether from the land or the sea, wants to see the civilians of the world rescued from this kind of torment in the days to come.
The Mover of the Motion said that he wanted to get rid of war. I think we on this side are entitled to say that we share that desire. We have to realise that in the last 4,000 years there have been something like 3,450 wars in the world, and I suppose that all through the ages this same desire that the hon. Gentleman has expressed has existed. Since the Great War there have been wars in almost every part of the world, in spite of the fact that we were so hopeful that there would be a new temper in mankind and that people would appeal to reason rather than to violence. There is no good in our imagining that the mere fact that we in this House express that desire is going to


alter the temper of mankind. My own belief is that at this moment any Motion which we pass—and this does not detract from the merits of the proposal—will have very little effect. At the very moment when we are declaiming against the bombing of civilians most of the great Powers of the world are actually providing bombers in two great theatres of war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not think I ought to go into the merits of the why or the wherefore, but I think it is not denied that vast numbers of bombers are taking part in operations in the East and in Spain, which have been provided with the cognisance of every one of the Governments of the great Powers, except His Majesty's Government and one other. Whatever our feelings may be in regard to this tragedy of intervention, we ought to agree that our Government has stood definitely for a policy—it may not have been successful but our Government has loyally carried out its part.

Mr. Gallacher: If you approve of it it must be against the Republican Government.

Sir H. Croft: As long as I know that the hon. Gentleman does not approve of what I am saying, I am satisfied. We are, day by day, becoming aware of what happens when this kind of warfare is conducted, and it is a great lesson to us that we should try in face of this peril to be united in promoting measures which will give the greatest possible safety to our people on the one hand and provide the most effective form of defence or counter-offence on the other. [Interruption.] Really it is no laughing matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think people are beginning to realise the tragedy of this kind of thing. Surely one of the lessons we ought to learn on this subject is the necessity of getting together and doing everything in our power to equip ourselves to prevent disasters of the kind that have been described happening to our own civilians, and also seeing to it that it will not be fruitful for any other country to undertake such operations against ourselves.
I wish to say a few words about certain happenings which we have seen recently. I do not propose to be any more contentious than the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, but if we are seekers after truth in this country, let us try

to get as close as we can to the facts of the case. Reference was made by the hon. Gentleman to the bombing of the town of Guernica. The book to which the hon. Member referred is, I think, entitled "The Tree of Guernika." One of my hon. Friends who visited that tree shortly after the events described, may be taking part in this Debate at a later stage. Whatever may be the story of Guernica, we would all deplore, because of its historical associations and the fact that it is a precious site to many Spaniards, the fact that it should cease to exist, with certain exceptions, as we are told, the municipal buildings are intact, and the sacred tree is intact. In that particular area, I am told, there is no sign of any bombing. It is remarkable, since we are told that these bombs appeared to fall in star-like formations that the German bombers were so skilful that they were able to avoid the destruction of all the Fascist houses which were the houses of the rich—the substantial houses. Surely we all know by now that however substantial houses may be they cannot stand up against high explosive bombs.

Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in Madrid exactly the same phenomenon is to be seen? You can see hundreds of working-class houses smashed like egg-shells, whereas the substantial stone buildings, which were presumably the objectives of the attackers, are practically intact. Even in the University City some of them are intact.

Sir H. Croft: I am certain that it would be possible from the air to segregate certain parts of a great city, but in a small place like Guernica, a tiny little town of 6,000 inhabitants, it would be impossible. It is really giving the airmen credit for a power the possession of which they have not so far proved, to say that they would be able to fly above this narrow little town and discriminate between working-class dwellings and other dwellings.

Miss Rathbone: The point is that the bombs did not destroy the other dwellings.

Sir H. Croft: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to proceed with my remarks. I am trying to make a case very briefly and I hope not with any hostility, in answer to what the hon.


Gentleman has said from the Front Opposition Bench. This admirable journalist wrote the book from which the hon. Member has quoted, but I gather that the author of the book was not present when this occurred. He has admitted that mountains stood between him and Guernica.

Miss Wilkinson: Has the hon. and gallant Member any proof of what he is saying?

Sir H. Croft: I could bring scores of witnesses, but the hon. Lady is so sincere in her views on this question that she would never listen to any evidence from the other side. The hon. Members who have interrupted honestly think, I believe, that there has been bombing only on one side in Spain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am glad to have even that approval of my utterances in the admission that there has been bombing on both sides. What I wish to put to the House is that during the last 18 months there has been bombing of non-military objectives far from the fighting line on the part of the minority government—I will not call them the Red government—of Barcelona.

Mr. Gallacher: Are you discussing the Motion?

Sir H. Croft: The hon. Gentleman who is very vocal has not yet been appointed Speaker of this House. If we are to pass a Motion, as I hope, unanimously, and to send it out to the world, let us not be guilty in this great Chamber of pretending that there is only one side to this case. I think what prompted this Motion was the fact that there have been recently great raids on Barcelona and Valencia.

Mr. Morgan Jones: That there has been bombing in various parts of the world.

Sir H. Croft: Of course we have to realise that Barcelona has features similar to the Port of London. It has, let us say, a Chatham, a Woolwich Arsenal, a Hendon and a Westminster. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is one of the principal seaports and it is a naval base. It is a ministerial and governmental centre and it is very close to an air centre. It is the seat of government. On the other hand, Valencia might not be unfairly described as similar to Devonport.

Miss Wilkinson: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman been there?

Sir H. Croft: Only twice, but I have not been there recently. I have not been as brave as the hon. Lady, and I have not intervened during these present troubles. I have not been there recently, I admit. These places which are being bombed, tragic though it is, are precisely—and this is the lesson that I want to bring before the House—the types of places that we have got to consider will be bombed in the case of the next war and which we have got to make adequate preparations to defend against air attack. Is it realised that during the whole of last year numerous towns have been continuously bombed? I am glad to see this protest arising here to-day, but are we aware, for instance, that in one week, as far back as 25th May, the towns of Palencia, Catalazud, Palma Mallorca, Pamplona, and what I may call the scholastic or university city of Valladolid, have all been bombed? I do not know whether any exception is taken to that.
I have here returns for the months of May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December, when Cordoba, Granada, Seville, Avila, Segovia, Merida, and Motril were continuously bombed by Red planes, and owing to some extraordinary conspiracy in the Press of this country not a word has been uttered. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Members who are so vocal will give me the dates on which the respectable Press of this country referred to those bombings. I should very much like to have them. To give one single day, I will refer to 25th July, when Caceres, which is 60 miles from the Front, with no possible relation to the fighting which was taking place, was raided so violently—this little place—that 18 women were killed and 34 women wounded, five children were killed and seven wounded, and eight civilian men were killed and 28 wounded, or 100 in all, in one raid. We heard nothing about that then.
Up till May 400 bombers had been brought down by the Nationalists. I cannot give the exact figures of those brought down by the other side. These figures cannot so well be challenged when those machines were what one might describe as actually in the bag, and they are all listed. [Interruption.] I am only too glad to get any evidence of facts, but it seems to me that up till now we have heard only one side of the case. The facts are that a very large number of


machines have been brought down. We all know that there have been, day after day, declamations against the Italians and the Germans, and quite rightly so, I think. I am no friend of these countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not so sure that the Foreign Secretary could not tell you that I have been rather a disturbing element and there is no Member of this House who has been more criticised in Germany than I have. That being the fact, let us try to get a sense of proportion. Were there not large numbers of bombers on either side, and is it or is it not a fact that the vast majority of the bombers which were used on the side of Red Spain came from Russia? Is there any factory in that country where these bombers can be built?

Miss Wilkinson: Yes.

Sir H. Croft: Since when? To build these particular types of bomber, which come from Russia, Mexico, and France? If the hon. Lady can tell me that, I shall be very much educated on the subject. I do not want to keep the House long, but if I have been longer than I intended, it has been because of constant interruptions from the Benches above the Gangway, from Scylla and Charybdis, leading me off the path. There seems to be some disagreement with the fact that these contributions have been made, but is it denied that the leaders of the Government in Barcelona have declared that they could not have remained in the war but for the aid of Russia? I will give the exact words of Martin Barrio:
I, who am not a Communist, say that without the help of the U.S.S.R. the Spanish Republic would have disappeared.
Here is another:
But for the vast contributions of munitions from Russia and Mexico, the war could not have been carried on.
Again we have Senor Negrin admitting the aid of Russia and Mexico, and a Deputy, supporting him, said:
Only this aid has enabled the Valencia Government to continue the war.
I think that is generally admitted. Then let us get rid of this one-sided talk. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us have the other side of the story."] We have heard nothing but the other side for the last 18 months. I think I have said enough—

Mr. George Griffiths: You never said a truer word.

Sir H. Croft: I have a lot of evidence by me, and I am quite prepared to go on and give more of it, but I think I have said enough to show that it really is not helping the cause of peace, it really is not holding the scales evenly, to declare again and again that this raiding has been done by the wicked Italians and by the wicked Germans, when the facts are that the whole of the air warfare has been carried on by foreign machines. Let us not particularise. All of them have been foreign machines, and this intervention has come from all sides. If we are asking this House to give what I hope will be a unanimous message to the world that we deplore the whole of this kind of warfare, how deplorable it is that quite a large number of the Members of Parliament in this democracy have recently been lured to Spain in order to show their sympathy with one side, when the Government of this country is definitely committed to non-intervention. After all, democracy, if it is going to have its influence on a question such as this, must have some justification, but if a democratic Government, elected by a large majority of the manhood and womanhood of this country, decides on a certain policy, and leading Members of the Opposition go to a country where there is civil war and directly encourage one side in that civil war to add to the slaughter, that is hammering a nail into the coffin of democracy. Things reached a pretty pass when an ex-Minister of the Crown went to Spain and made a speech actually attacking the Government of this country and his own Foreign Secretary. That, I submit, was very bad.
I cannot conceive that ever before in the history of this country leading Members of the Opposition would have gone abroad as leading Members of the present Opposition have done recently—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Gladstone?"]—Did Mr. Gladstone ever go to a foreign country and fulminate against the Government of this country, however much he did not agree with it? If he did so, it is surprising that he had so little patriotic instinct. What does democracy mean? If you are not going to stand together behind the Government of the day you can turn it out next year or the year after, but if you are not going to stand behind the foreign policy of the Government, with all the world looking on, but are to go to foreign countries


and make speeches against the Government of your own country, democracy will suffer a blow from which it will be difficult to recover. In spite of all that, I hope that every Member will vote for the Motion, because, if it only calls attention to this ghastly business, it will have done some good. I congratulate the hon. Member on the speech with which he opened the Debate.

3.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) began his speech by saying that he was not going to be controversial. I am sure the House will agree that he has treated us to one of the most controversial speeches we have heard for a long time. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is no Member on this side who at the proper time and place would be averse to crossing swords with him and his friends on what is taking place in Spain to-day, but this is not the time and place. His speech was wholly irrelevant to the Motion before the House. I can also assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that hon. Members on this side are not using this Motion as a peg on which to hang an attack upon his friend General Franco, but they are seeking to obtain the condemnation and the termination of aerial attacks on all peoples, no matter who they may be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has apparently forgotten that, although it is true that air attacks have taken place upon towns and cities within territory under the control of the Spanish insurgent authorities, it is also true that the Spanish Government have offered to the insurgents to cease all bombing attacks upon insurgent territory and that that offer was rejected by the Spanish insurgent authorities.

Sir H. Croft: It was a bit late in the day.

Mr. Henderson: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House welcome this discussion. Public opinion everywhere has been deeply stirred by the ghastly sufferings caused by air raids both in Spain and in China. Innocent men, women and children have been slaughtered wholesale and thousands of them have been terribly mutilated. One has only to recall the dropping of bombs some weeks ago in Shanghai on the Bund,

resulting in a few minutes in more than one thousand casualties, practically all of whom were civilians. More recently, only last Sunday, there took place in Barcelona one of the worse air raids on record. I hope that I may be forgiven if I follow the example of the hon. Member who opened the discussion by giving the House some details of what is actually involved in a particular air raid. According to the "Times," Barcelona was last Sunday twice raided by squadrons of aeroplanes coming from the direction of Palma, Majorca. It is interesting to observe the direction from which' those aeroplanes came, because it is suggested that Majorca is entirely under Italian control. The account goes on to say:
The death roll was the heaviest since the outbreak of the civil war, although the destruction of buildings was hardly as great as in the terrible raid of 19th January. The Mayor of Barcelona said to-day that the number of lives lost was 300, if not more; in the raid last month the number was about 200. Many of the victims are buried, either dead or alive, in basements or cellars under many tons of debris. Rescue squads are doing their best, but their work is slow and the chance of saving many scorns hopeless.
One need not have much imagination to realise the sufferings of those people who were alive and buried under those tons of debris. The account goes on:
Late this afternoon 280 bodies had been recovered. In one place 120 children, war refugees from Bilbao and Madrid, were buried. It is feared that all are dead. There are stated to have been 147 children in this group, of whom 27 escaped. Their nurses and attendants are also missing.
Then the "Times" goes on to say:
In a part of the city where streets are narrow, passage was barred by huge mounds of mortar and stone from the buildings, of which only cracked and tottering walls remain. In one of those buildings I saw bedroom alcoves clinging to the rear wall, which was all that remained upright. … Not a person had escaped from this building; all had taken refuge in the cellar and are buried there.
On such occasions as the one I have just described it is almost impossible to assess the damage done in terms of human suffering. People may well ask whose turn it will be next. In almost every country in the world to-day Governments and peoples are making preparations for safeguarding their civilian populations against air attacks in future. No longer is it a trial of strength when war comes between the armed forces of each


country. In modern war women and children find themselves in the front line. In former days there was a cry, "Women and children first," when it was a question of giving them the first chance to live. To-day they have to be killed first in order that they may be sacrificed to the Moloch of war. A few years ago the then Prime Minister, now Lord Baldwin, summed up the position in this House when he stated:
It is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through.
He went on to say:
The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 632, Vol. 270.]
Is it beyond the wit of man to evolve a code which would rule out the horrors of aerial warfare? Has our civilisation sunk so low that modern warfare has to involve a return to the law of the jungle?
It is interesting to remember, as my hon. Friend who opened this discussion mentioned, that the prevention of aerial bombing was discussed at the ill-fated Disarmament Conference. As my hon. Friend said, the question was fully considered by the Air Commission of that conference; and I may say that the majority of those who participated as members of the Air Commission were experts on this question. As my hon. Friend indicated, they were unanimously of the opinion that air bombardment was a grave threat to civilisation. That was the view of the Air Commission itself; but the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference which, as hon. Members know, was composed of the whole of the delegates of the conference, passed the following resolution in July, 1932:
The Conference, deeply impressed with the danger overhanging civilisation from bombardment from the air in the event of future conflict, and determined to take all practicable measures to provide against this danger, records the following conclusion: Air attack against the civilian population shall' be absolutely prohibited. Secondly, the High Contracting Parties shall agree as between themselves that all bombardment from the air shall be abolished, subject to agreement with regard to measures to be adopted for the purpose of rendering effective the observance of this rule.

The next step taken was in March, 1933, when the United Kingdom delegation submitted a Draft Convention, Article 34 of which provided for a complete abolition of bombing from the air, except for police purposes in certain outlying regions. This particular Draft Convention of the British Government was on that occasion read a first time, but no definite decision was taken. Article 34 itself gave rise to considerable discussion, special attention being directed to the exception which I have just quoted. As my hon. Friend indicated, then was the psychological moment for the British Government to have gone to the Disarmament Conference and to have taken the same line as was taken by the Russian and the United States Governments, whose representatives stated unequivocally that their Governments were in favour of the total and complete abolition of air bombing. One may gather what happened from a speech made in another place by one of the British delegates to the Conference to whom my hon. Friend referred—Lord Londonderry. Speaking subsequently Lord Londonderry said:
In March, 1932, the Disarmament Conference assembled, and almost its earliest discussion was centred round the possibility of the total abolition of air forces, at least the abolition of the artillery of the air, the bombing aeroplane.
He went on to say:
I had the utmost difficulty at that time, amid the public outcry, in preserving the use of the bombing aeroplane even on the frontiers of the Middle East and in India.
He said further:
I felt certain that when ideas of abolition were examined pratically they would be discovered to be inapplicable in the state of the world to-day. We could not put the clock back.
I want to be fair to the Government. It is true that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on a subsequent occasion in this House, made it perfectly clear that so far as the British Government were concerned they would not allow that exception to stand in the way of a convention; but the damage had by then been done. The psychological opportunity had been missed. If the British Government and the other Governments of the world, instead of grasping the nettle of militarism and armaments with the palsied hand of insincerity and weakness, had grasped it with the hand of enthusiasm and determination, there might have been a very different result from that Conference.
Be that as it may, nations of the world have in fact expressed themselves in favour of the total abolition of air bombing, and I should like to re-echo the words of my hon. Friend who opened this discussion by asking the Foreign Secretary, Is it too late? I know that it will be argued that it is no use making agreements when there are nations in the world who will persist in breaking them, but I suggest that the fact that nations may break their agreements does not destroy the value of international agreements. The value of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the value of the Kellogg Pact, is just as great as, if not greater than, ever, in spite of the breach of those international obligations by various Governments.
I hope that to-night the Foreign Secretary will accept the invitation of my hon. Friend and make it clear that His Majesty's Government will do everything they can not only to co-operate with the French Prime Minister in his endeavour to obtain an agreement between the two parties in Spain so far as air bombing is concerned, but also to deal with the wider question of aerial bombardment whenever the occasion may arise in the future. The influence of the British Government is still great in the council of nations, in spite of all their vacillations during recent years. The right hon. Gentleman has a great opportunity. I hope he will take it. If he will take his stand on this great question and endeavour to lead the nations of the world along these paths he will have the support of this side of the House. This is not a party question; this is a question of the interests of humanity as a whole, and anything which this or any other Government can do to safeguard the welfare of humanity will receive the support of every Member on this side of the House.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) gave us a characteristically delightful speech. I do not think Colonel Blimp himself could have done it better. He put forward the remarkable political doctrine that in matters of foreign policy it is the duty of the Opposition to rally round the policy of the Government of the day, however much they may disagree with it.

Sir H. Croft: In this House all Oppositions oppose the Government—that is

quite clear—and if they disagree with their foreign policy they oppose it; but to go to a foreign country and oppose the policy of the Government is something which has never been done before.

Mr. Mander: I understand that if a Labour Government were in power and the hon. and gallant Member disagreed with their foreign policy they could still rely upon him to rally round them in support of it?

Sir H. Croft: I would not go to Spain and speak against my own country.

Mr. Mander: In regard to the question which we have been discussing, there is much to be ascertained in the pages of that remarkable book "The Tree of Gernika." If any hon. Member has any doubts he ought to read the book through, and I should be prepared to abide by the decision he came to after reading it; but I am afraid that whenever a question arises which affects dictators or Nazis or those of the extreme Right my hon. and gallant Friend suddenly becomes incapable of reasoning. He is not able to weigh the evidence. He comes automatically and subconsciously—against his will, I feel sure—to certain rigid conclusions, and no evidence of any kind could possibly shake or change him. I sympathise very much with him in the plight in which he finds himself, with all the terrible accounts that he has been giving us of the bombing operations in Spain, that he cannot find one British newspaper to print that kind of thing. It is certainly very unfortunate, and I am sure that he enjoys the sympathy of every Member of this House.
The Motion before us has nothing to do with the much-debated question of Spain, and we might leave it aside and concentrate upon what is raised by the Motion. I feel that the only way to arrive at the conclusion desired by the hon. Member, and the best form of international agreement to end bombing, is to implement the Covenant of the League of Nations. In that way alone we shall end bombing and end war, and allow ourselves to return once more to the possibilities of a Disarmament Convention such as the Government proposed in 1933, and which can be carried out multilaterally under international inspection, so that we can see that every country is carrying out the promises which it has made. So long


as war lasts in the world—and it certainly cannot last for ever—nations will make use of the very potent weapons which science has placed in their hands, and no resolution or convention which they may have signed will hamper or prevent them from doing so if they think they have their backs to the wall and that by bombing they can get their way. I do not quite agree that we should concentrate all our efforts in getting a convention signed pledging nations not to use bombing.

Sir John Withers: If nations will not stand by such a convention why should they be expected to stand by the League of Nations?

Mr. Mander: We can only hope that human nature will improve, and that public opinion will be educated so that sufficient pressure can be put upon all Governments, including our own, to make them carry out the obligations to which they have set their hands. In the case of a disarmament convention we can ensure that they keep their word by a system of international inspection. I feel that this is not a very useful avenue to follow, because I think it does not lead anywhere, and that it is better for us to concentrate upon the abolition of war altogether.
As long as war continues, there is something to be said for it remaining the horrible and disgusting thing it is, so that when people see it and realise it they are more likely to want to get rid of it, rather than give them the impression that it can be conducted on certain lines by the experts and the military people, and that civilians can sit quietly and safely outside. Not only will nations use the weapon of the bomber, but they will use gas when they think they can do so safely. They have not been using it in the Far East or in Spain because they have realised that that terrible weapon would be used against whichever side started to use it, and they do not want to experience it. It was used by the Italians in Abyssinia because they knew there was no possibility of it being used against them, and that it was a safe thing for them to do in the circumstances.
If the situation were not so serious it would be ludicrous to consider some of the things which have been going on in

Europe. Take the recent visit of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to Berlin. I hope that he will give an assurance to the House later on that he is quite satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made in Berlin and that there is now no danger that any of the bombs that we have been manufacturing in this country, or bombings or air raids that may take place, can possibly harm, wound or kill any of the German population. It is very important, of course, that he should compare notes with Germany, and see that anything we can do will be rendered innocuous. I hope that he has satisfied himself that General Goering, Goebbels and the rest of them have some deep dug-out a long way under Berlin to which they can retire as soon as British bombers are notified as having started from this country. Is it not ludicrous and insane that we should be embarking upon an immense armaments programme here, and that the Home Office should go over to Berlin in order to exchange information in order to render our preparations innocuous? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give us the benefit of his experiences.
There is no doubt that we are planning to bomb each other. I will give figures which I believe to be reasonably accurate as to the scale on which the different countries are doing it, in percentages of bombers and fighters in their air forces, excluding machines that may be used for different purposes and are not classified as bombers or fighters. It is not easy to give exact figures because all the machines are not the same, and some bombers in this country are also fighters. I believe the figures to be reasonably accurate. In regard to Great Britain the figures are: bombers, 70 per cent., fighters, 30; Germany, bombers, 66 per cent. fighters, 33. The figures for France are the same. Italy, bombers, 50 per cent., and fighters, 50. Russia is the same, 50–50. From these figures it would appear that in this country more than anybody else we are concentrating in bombing foreign countries and bringing desolation upon the inhabitants, both military and civil. I dare say that is the correct technique and is the proper way to achieve your result, but it is none the less a very horrible thing to contemplate.
Reference has already been made to practical steps which have been considered


from time to time for the abolition of air warfare. I would make another brief reference to the Disarmament Conference. In 1932 the French Government brought forward admirable proposals that all bombers—they did this on the authority of their General Staff, and it was not a fancy scheme of some unimportant idealist—should be handed over to the League of Nations for custody and use, in order that they might be formed into an international air force. That scheme was approved by 17 countries, and I need hardly tell hon. Members that Great Britain was not one of them. In 1933 a supplementary scheme was put forward by the French Government. It was generally known as the Cot Scheme, because M. Cot was then and again until quite recently Minister for Air in France. The scheme proposed a form of international air force, placed under the League and freely recruited for the purpose of being used as a safeguard against the abuse by some country in converting machines used for civil aviation rapidly for bombing purposes. Again Great Britain opposed that practical proposal.
In March, 1933, we got the proposal to which the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) referred, the British scheme. It was really an excellent scheme, if it had been carried out, by which we were alternatively either to abolish military aviation and to control civil aviation or to cut down machines according to a strictly worked out figure for a period of years. I hope that we shall get back in due course to the consideration of one of these schemes. Any of them, if it could be carried out, would be a great step forward. But, if we are to do that, there are certain things which we must do as a country, and which our Government must do. First of all, they must get rid of their cowardice complex, which is hindering all our influence in the world. They must realise that Great Britain is the most vulnerable target, certainly so far as London is concerned, that is to be found anywhere in Europe. They must realise that Great Britain, London, and the British Empire are completely indefensible on the purely nationalistic lines on which they seem to be working at the present time. The only hope is to get back, as we must some day, to the collective system of the League of Nations. So alone can we end bombing and destroy war.

8.57 p.m.

Wing-Commander James: I little thought that I should ever find myself in complete agreement with a Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and with his speech in moving it, but that is the position in which I find myself to-night, except as regards two minor controversial points which were not relevant to his main argument or to the Resolution; I should like to make one or two observations on the non-controversial aspect of his speech. With the only argument used by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) I also find myself in agreement. He suggested, and I think he is right, that it might be putting the cart before the horse if air disarmament were made a prime consideration over and above general disarmament.
I should like to mention one or two other disadvantages of air armaments, though they are not so grave as the results of bombing. In the first place, they involve the desecration of whole tracts of the country for the purposes of the erection of enormous aerodromes, and they involve particularly the destruction of some of the most beautiful downland in Great Britain and much of the amenities of our coasts. I would refer also to the ever-increasing volume of horrible noise which deafens one over large parts of the country. In my own district of Northamptonshire hardly an hour passes on a fine day without one's ears being assailed by the noise of these infernal aeroplanes. Then there is the continuous toll of casualties during training, and, above all, there is the appalling waste of money and effort, and the disorganisation of ordinary life and industry in the manufacture of these purely destructive weapons.
I suggest, however, that it is getting the matter out of perspective to treat air bombing as the disease itself. As the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said, it is only a symptom of a much more serious and bigger problem. What we have to aim at is the reduction of armaments in general to a level which would eliminate the possibility of success by aggression. If that could be done, air disarmament might be expected to follow. But I think there is a real danger in pressing for air disarmament by itself, because, taken alone, it would act wholly to the advantage of other countries which


have conscription. It would automatically strengthen the hands of dictator Powers, and would weaken our power of intervention in the comity of nations. Any attempt, therefore, to make us weaker for bargaining for general disarmament with other nations must be treated with suspicion. The Opposition have displayed a readiness to accept the assurances of dictators on this matter when they have been very loth to accept them in any other direction.
Another aspect of the question is that we in this country have a very marked individual superiority in the air; we have the most efficient air force in the world, and we shall have by far the most powerful one. That would enable us, if the need arose, to render effective aid to people on the Continent whom we might wish to assist. In conclusion, I suggest that the greatest lever towards securing general disarmament is the spreading fear of air action. It may well be that in the long run what has been described as the martyrdom of Spain may at long last lead to such a revulsion against air armaments as to facilitate the general disarmament which is what we should aim at.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I have listened with sympathy to the moving of this Motion on behalf of the Labour party, but, while I agree with almost every word that has been said in support of it, I must, as a realist, examine the question of what prospect there is of success in achieving the object of the Motion. To call attention to the bombing of civilians in wartime is just about as far as I can agree with the Motion. I realise that bombing from the air has become, and will become, a very vital part of warfare conducted on modern lines, and with any suggestion that bombing is always aimed at the civilian population I must find myself in disagreement. I realise from experience and observation that the effect of bombing is a horrible, vicious and bestial thing, and no person in this country or in any country will disagree with that sentiment as expressed by any party or any individual in this House.
Bombing from the air is conducted, and will be conducted, even for the purposes of military warfare, with the object of destroying vital points in enemy territory, such as armament works, railways,

barracks, concentrations of troops, governmental buildings, and also roads, bridges and many other things. I saw the effects of bombing, as many Members of this House have seen it, at a little place on the Spanish frontier. A number of buildings were destroyed, women, children and men had been killed; but I frankly confess that I could not see in and around the place any military objectives. There was the tunnel that the rail was passing through, and the railway station that was the terminus where French people and all kinds of travellers and goods were going through. I realised that bombing could be used, on the other hand, in order to terrorise a civil population and, when military success is not being attained, in order to cause discontent behind the lines, so as to bring pressure to bear on a Government to make peace. Bombing is brutal. But all warfare is brutal. Every phase of it, to me, is obnoxious—the disembowelling of men with bayonets, the gassing of men, driving them to their death by making them unable to breathe, the shooting of men, the bombing of men, the machine-gunning of men. With the best will in the world, I cannot see how you are ever going to make warfare something of the kind that can be conducted by men from a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon in any Christian society. War has its roots, it has its causes; and to them we must direct our attention. Only when we have uprooted the system of private enterprise and private ownership of the means of life shall we eliminate bombing from the air, and warfare in any shape or form.
I remember a man who was a soldier in the South African war telling me that one evening he was at Divine Service at the South African plains. It was an ordinary Christian service, at about midday on Sunday. In the middle of the service, word came from the scouts that the Boers were engaged in some form of Divine Service not many miles away. The Divine Service was scrapped immediately; the clergyman was told to bring the worship of God to an end, because they must get on the march and seize their opponents at Divine Service, while they were disarmed. They proceeded speedily to the spot, caught the Boers at Divine Service, riddled them, and won a successful engagement, and, I have no doubt, returned to thank God that He had delivered the enemy into their hands


at Divine Service. That is war. To me, a Motion of this kind can be useful only in instilling into the minds of the people of this country a horror of war, a seeking of the causes of war. Then, in the end, by the abolition of the system of private property, ownership and control, we shall abolish war.
Reference has been made to Mussolini. There is no Member of this House who would say he had any faith in the word of Mussolini. Although Italy is not engaged as a nation in the conflict in Spain, he sends out submarines in a secretive way, sinks British and other ships, and then steals away like a gangster after accomplishing his foul deeds. A Member of this House told me last night that in Italy they boast of what they are doing in Spain. Men, even in this House, are prepared, by their collective class action, to starve working-class women, children and men in order to protect their economic interests under the capitalist system. Individually, they can be kind; but collectively, their policy is a brutal one of maintaining then-economic interests over the poor of the country, even to the point of starving them into subjection. The same policy is pursued in war. In the Spanish conflict and the Eastern conflict men are often guided by material interests. They would sacrifice men, women and children by thousands to protect their selfish, soulless, material interests. War is caused by one group seeking to get the better of another in order to control trade and the investing market.
Great Britain can enter a conference and plead for the abolition of the bombing weapon, provided that it is not abolished when they want to use it against the native tribes of North-West India. They want to abolish it from general warfare, not because they are pious or Christian or because they have a greater revulsion against it than any other nation, but because their bag is full, and because by collective action they want to protect their interests. The other fellow disagrees. If you believe in Capitalism, why should he not disagree? If he believes in dominating the markets of the world, and becoming the dominating force, he says, "I am for strong individual action." I say frankly that I cannot see bombing being abolished. I have seen the effects of bombing. Many other hon. Members have seen it. I have seen children

dragged out of the ruins of buildings and being pieced together. I have seen the walls soaked with blood by one well-directed bomb. One bomb can destroy fine buildings and hundreds of lives, but if it is going to be used in the event of war, even without the excuse of being used for military objectives, the nations which are interested in upholding the capitalist system will never agree to the abolition of bombing.
If I thought that an attempt could be successful in putting an end to bombing, I would support and sympathise with it and give it whole-hearted backing, but I cannot see warfare being Christianised or eliminated while Capitalism remains. It is as much a part of Capitalism as poverty and unemployment. We can no more abolish war under Capitalism than we could abolish rain by a resolution of this House. The executive authorities in every Government are the custodians of the rights of private property. They have to serve the interests of private property and to defend private property, just as has the unemployed man in Lancashire who is unemployed because money has been invested in the mills at Shanghai. He is the victim of the starting of the mills at Shanghai, which you cannot prevent. The son of the unemployed man goes out to protect the rights of the Lancashire millowners at Shanghai with his blood and his life. Until you can get a recognition by the people of the world that a war is brought about by Capitalism for capitalist interests and in defence of the investments in the unhappy labour of the poor in this country, war will never be eliminated. Capitalism must be uprooted in every single avenue. It is only by popularising the theories of the public ownership of the means of life throughout the world, of international ownership and control, that the bombing of civilians, of women and children, and the destruction of men, who lose their lives, or their limbs and all that health means, will cease.
The Labour party talk of disarmament conferences. If we had adopted the policy of this Motion, and if we had pinned our faith to collective security and had backed the League of Nations, we would have extended war. If we had listened to some of the well-meaning pacifists in this country we would have been in war right up to the neck at the moment. War


would not have been minimised, but extended. I am not prepared to trust my life, liberty and well-being to the hands of the British Foreign Secretary. If he should say that Mr. McGovern should go on to the battlefield, I should say, "No. He may decide to go himself, but he must not say that I must go, or that anybody who comes under my influence should go." No Government, no matter what its political complexion, is going to speak for me as an individual when it comes to a question of defending the interests of private ownership. If it is a class struggle in order to bring about public ownership, then I am in the struggle right up to the hilt, just as the Spanish workers went into the struggle right up to the hilt. The bombing that has been going on in Spain has, in many cases, certainly not had military objectives. I think that it is getting to the point where it is an attempt to terrify the civilian population into subjection because Franco, Hitler and Mussolini are not getting a decision in Spain, and they do not seem likely to get a rapid decision.
I am whole-heartedly in agreement with every sentiment that has been expressed against bombing and warfare and every form of brutality which is carried on in war throughout the world. But no pious resolutions in this House and no amount of agreements and meetings of Governments will be successful because always, when war comes, one group seeks the advantage over another by springing surprises. There will be further surprises if war takes place between this country and another country, and we must concentrate our attention upon men, women and children throughout the country, and, by studied persistence, give the working-class movement a line of thinking in the direction of collective action directed to the overthrow of the system that works for war. When you end capitalism you will end war, civilian bombing, unemployment, poverty and a large amount of disease, and you will make way for a further advance in education, scientific knowledge and progress, and in human happiness throughout the world. That is the only way I can see of abolishing bombing and war.

9.22 p.m.

Wing-Commander Wright: We must all have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the non-controversial way in

which the Mover of this Motion has presented the case to-night. In what he said there was very little to which any of us could have taken exception, and, certainly, we cannot find anything in the wording of his Motion which we could possibly oppose. I intervene in this Debate only because I regret that the whole atmosphere of the Debate has been such as is likely to increase rather than allay the, to my mind, exaggerated fear and alarm which exists in the minds of many people to-day as to the dangers from aerial bombing. I would be the last person to minimise these dangers, but they are not anything like what many people believe, provided the defences, which are well-known to us to-day, are provided where they are needed. We have had the opportunity of observing m three recent wars the application of aerial attack, but we have not yet had any opportunity of obsreving the application of modern aerial defences.
We can certainly learn two lessons from these three wars. The first is the appalling waste of life and destruction of material which come to a city when it is bombed, and has not been provided with proper defence. The second lesson which we learn is that the theory held by all sorts of people up to the present, that by bombing the civilian population you will reduce it to a state of panic when it will go to its Government and demand that it should make peace upon any terms, is groundless. These wars have proved that that is entirely a fallacious theory and that it does not work out in that way at all. In fact we have seen, on one side at all events in Spain, exactly the opposite effect take place. We have seen parties which we know had strongly divergent political views, knit together into one whole, in a splendid determination to protect themselves against these barbarous attacks from the air. I believe that as a result of these lessons we shall not in any major European war such as we might be engaged in—if indeed we are so unfortunate as ever to be drawn into war again—see the deliberate bombing of open towns and defenceless citizens.
But what we have to realise is that the coming into use in war of this new aerial arm has made our great industrial districts—where are to be found our big power stations, our important lines of


communications, and where, most important of all, are congregated our munition factories—perfectly legitimate targets. If those targets are attacked, then of course, the civilian population around them—often in very thickly populated areas—are bound to suffer to some extent. I assume that in this great expense of £1,500,000,000 proper air defences are going to be provided for those areas, but I maintain that if they are provided it would be possible to make those comparatively few areas almost impregnable. If once we do that, it will not be worth while sending bombing machines at all.
I am glad that the House is going to accept this Motion to-night, because we are the country which can afford to take the lead in making such a move towards the abolition of this barbarous side of war. If we are thus able to bring some protection to those smaller countries which obviously cannot provide such defences as we can in this country, then we shall have gone a long way towards achieving our object. But I do not feel that we could safely leave the defence of our own people to such protection as would be afforded by a Motion such as this.

9.28 p.m.

Major Milner: I had not intended to speak in this Debate, but I think it necessary to say one or two things, particularly as I believe that no one who has recently been to Spain has spoken. I hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the Bournemouth Division (Sir H. Croft) would have been here, because I really desired to address a word or two to him. He was good enough to suggest that those of us who went to Spain were lured there—that was the expression he used; and he seemed to imply that there was some obligation on us to take active steps to assist the Spanish Government in some way or other, but I assure him that as far as I am concerned—and I have no doubt my colleagues were in the same position—I was not lured there in any sense. I offered voluntarily to go, and was not approached in any way, and before I went I made it perfectly clear that I was under no obligation, and should say precisely what I thought and be guided entirely by what I saw. I do not know that I need deal further with what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, except to say that he did not

quote a single authority for the various statements which he made as to the action taken by the Spanish Government in bombarding open towns in that part of Spain occupied by the rebels. And, frankly, I do not accept the particulars he gave. He seemed to me to be inclined to offer, if that were possible, almost complete justification of the practice of bombing and to speak, so far as he could, in complete opposition to the Motion now before the House.
I appreciate, and I am sure the House will appreciate, the comforting words which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has addressed to us. He has had experience in the Royal Air Force, and I agree with him that it is perfectly true that so far we have not seen any case where there has been really adequate defence, or the best defence possible, against attack from the air, but I myself am convinced that there is no adequate or complete defence. The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) quoted the remarks of Mr. Baldwin, which are well known, to the effect that the bomber will always get through. Those of us who have been to Spain have seen that that is true. It may be said that the defences which the Spanish Government, having regard to the so-called Non-intervention Agreement, have been able to put up, are not as adequate or as strong as we in this country are likely to put up. Nevertheless the speed of bombers, coming as they do from Majorca, is so high, they fly at such a height, and they drop their bombs so indiscriminately that it is impossible, in my judgment, to provide a complete defence against them. We saw anti-aircraft in operation; we saw searchlights; we did not see, it is true, many of the new devices which we understand our own Government have up their sleeve; but I cannot myself conceive of any defence which would do more than partially protect our large towns.
The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, for whom we all have a high personal regard, is spending a good deal of time on "black-outs" and all that sort of thing. Some people appear to think that a "black-out" is a sort of magic cloak which can be thrown over London or elsewhere, and which will form a complete protection. That is not so in any sense


of the word. All a "black-out" will do is possibly to divert a bomb intended for the War Office if you like to the—[Several HON. MEMBERS: "The Foreign Office!"]—to the Foreign Office or, I was going to say, perhaps to the large Battersea electrical station, half a mile or so up the river or vice versa. The bomb intended for one objective will hit another objective, and certainly that is no protection for the civilian population. Indeed, the situation will be such that bombs are more likely to be dropped among the civilian population, who occupy a greater portion of the ground than is occupied by military objectives or Government offices. From my experience, short as it was, I do not believe that there is anything more than a very partial defence against the bombing of the civilian population.
I had some little experience, as many Members of the House had, during the War. In my view there is no comparison between the effects of those air raids and the effects of a large number of bombs dropped by a large number of aeroplanes. In Spain I saw 80 overhead at one time; I never saw more than a dozen or 15 at the most during the Great War. The only comparable thing is a barrage of high explosive shells directed against a particular small section of the enemy front. In the Great War there were trenches or dug-outs in which one could get very substantial protection, but in the case of bombs dropped from the air there is no protection. The only possibility is that a certain number of shelters can be provided, but those shelters cannot in the very best condiitons, spend as much money as you like, protect more than a very small proportion of the population.
The bombing aeroplanes come over practically without warning. In Barcelona the syren would blow, you looked out of the window, you heard the aeroplane overhead and simultaneously you heard the bombs dropped. You never knew whether the next bomb would drop on the building where you happened to be. The bombs were bigger than anything that I saw in the Great War. They made craters of from 12 to 15 yards across. They were immensely powerful. Notwithstanding all our efforts we had practically no evidence of any present intervention by the Russian Government.

We did see a quantity of old, small arm ammunition which was being refilled, but there was no evidence of any other intervention.

Sir H. Croft: Did the hon. and gallant Member not see 600 Russian tanks?

Major Milner: No. I do not suppose the Spanish Government has such a number either from Russia or elsewhere. That story reminds me of the story of the Russians who came over during the war. In my district they were supposed to have gone through York station. Everybody knew that they were Russians because they had snow on their boots. When I am told that the Spanish Government have 600 tanks from Russia, I say that they have nothing like that number either from Russia or elsewhere. We had, however, very ample evidence of Italian intervention. We saw hundreds of Italian aeroplanes. Every bomb we saw, some of which did not explode, high explosive and incendiary bombs, were of Italian manufacture. One plane was brought down and one of its machine guns was brought straight to us. It was manufactured by Fiat, Turin. The pilot's identification book was produced to us within an hour of the machine being brought down, and it transpired that he was commissioned at Seville on 31st October, 1937. There was the plainest evidence, as there has been for months past, and up to the present time, of intervention of a very grave and serious kind by Italy. The bombs which were dropped on the British ship "Thorpeness" at Tarragona were of Italian manufacture and were dropped from an Italian aeroplane.

Mr. McGovern: Lest there should be misunderstanding, is the hon. and gallant Member attempting to make out to the country that Russia is not supplying a large amount of arms to the Spanish Government? Is it not a thing that we should be rather proud of rather than attempt to deny it? It is bad propaganda.

Major Milner: I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks he is assisting me, or otherwise.

Mr. McGovern: I only want to make the position clear. The best propaganda that can be done is to compliment a working class Government for assisting the Spanish Government.

Major Milner: The hon. Member's propaganda always seems to me to be as mischievous as possible on one side or the other. I was not intending to prove that there was no Russian intervention. What I said was perfectly plain. I saw no present evidence of Russian intervention other than that I have indicated. I do not think there was at any time anything like the intervention or help from Russia that there has been from the Fascist Powers.
This matter is a much more serious one than our people realise. I do not think they have the slightest idea of what a bombing raid might mean. I do not think they appreciate the death, destruction, chaos, misery and unhappiness that such a raid could cause in this country. It behoves all of us, and not least the Government, who must bear the chief responsibility, not to be content merely with rearming, but to take active steps. I am sorry that my hon. Friend in his Motion did not use rather stronger language. He asks the Government to use their influence. I ask the Government to take active steps day by day until they can bring about some solution of this problem by an agreement between the various countries involved. If that is not done, then such destruction, misery and unhappiness as were visited on this country and other countries during the Great War will be as nothing to what will happen to us if another war comes in a year or two. I hope the Government will accept the Motion.

9.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have listened with very great interest to the discussion. As so often happens on private Members' days the discussion has perhaps been even more interesting than many of the more advertised discussions we hold on other occasions. We have had all points of view expressed and there emerges a comprehension both of the seriousness of the problem with which we have to deal and its vital importance, and also a measure of comprehension of the difficulties, both technical and political, which confront any attempts to secure a solution.
I should like to say at the outset that the Government far from complaining of the hon. Member's action in bringing forward the Motion are grateful for the

choice which he has made, and I should like to congratulate him on the speech with which he introduced it. There can be no doubt in the minds of any one of us, even in the mind of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) as to our feelings in respect to the Motion. The whole House will agree that when the Motion refers to:
the growing horror of aerial bombing of defenceless civilians,
it is expressing the feelings not only of the hon. Member's own party but of the House and the whole nation. The hon. Member for Shettleston, very rightly, pointed out some of the difficulties. I thought that it was a very honest speech, even though I do not think that his universal remedy would be as effective as he is ready to believe. In pointing out the difficulties he said that he thought under his plan all would be well. It he is not optimistic about the Motion I am less optimistic about the efficacy of his cure.
There is agreement in all parties as to the many perils—I use the word in its widest sense—which must result to the world from the use of this aerial weapon. By its very character it has extended the field of military operations and widened the range of havoc and destruction in any conflict in any country. Its indiscriminate use is brutalising in its effect on all concerned. Only too soon we get used, unfortunately, to even the worst atrocities. One of the most disturbing factors of the abuse of this aerial weapon is that it produces callousness and weakens restraint in those who use it and even in those who suffer from it. I think it is clear that unless something can be done to meet this menace the peoples of the world in the latter part of this century are going to live as troglodytes and go back to the age of cave dwellers.
It is a fantastic and sad commentary on our civilisation that all the nations are to-day spending millions of money in order to protect themselves against a weapon of which they are all in truth afraid, but which they cannot agree how they are to control. Hitherto every attempt that has been made to co-operate in this business has failed. I do not want to refer to that King Charles Head, our reservation to the bombing resolution at Geneva in 1932. I can only express my own opinion that that resolution, whether wise or unwise from the point of view of tactics, whether wise or unwise from an


electioneering point of view, was without any significance on the course of events. That must be a matter of opinion. I ask, how should we in this world to-day strike a visitor from another planet in the preparations we are solemnly making for each other's destruction, even exchanging Notes on how to do it and how to avoid it? Where is this going to stop? With the ever increasing range of these weapons and their ever increasing speed, there will soon be no single part of the world which can feel itself safe from their menace.
I do not want to detain the House, but there are one or two comments I want to make on the detailed aspect of this question. Although it is well that we should express our opinion on the Motion it is equally important that we should realise the problems with which we have to deal. First, I should like to take the question as to whether there is any definite rule of international law regarding the bombing of civilians from the air. At present there is one only, and that is that direct, deliberate and intentional bombing of non-combatants, as such, is illegal. That is simply an aspect of a general rule, it is a canon of international law, and it is the basis of representations and claims which we have ourselves recently made in the conflict in the Far East. Beyond that no definite rules have ever been evolved. In the last war, when the air weapon came first into general use, there was no convention, nor has one been entered into at any time since.
The essential thing upon which I want to concentrate the attention of the House is this—whether any steps can be taken, and if so what steps, to reduce the sufferings of the civil population from the use of this bombing weapon? Let me make clear at once that while we realise the difficulties in connection with action, we are strongly in favour of action. I cannot altogether accept what the hon. Member for Shettleston said when he maintained that no rules of international law are ever observed in warfare, and that it was not much use to try and make any new ones. I cannot accept that, and low as our standards have fallen it is not even now true.

Mr. McGovern: I never said that. I simply asked what was the value of

making agreements with people like Mussolini who never kept them?

Mr. Eden: I apologise to the hon. Member; it was another hon. Member who used that argument. But the argument has been used that it is no use making a new convention because other conventions have not been kept. That is not entirely true. There were international conventions which throughout the last War were observed, and I cannot accept the doctrine that because certain people have not kept their engagements we are never to try to improve the existing situation. I believe we are not alone in the anxieties which we feel about this problem to-day. The hon. Member who moved the Motion referred to the appeal made by the French Prime Minister yesterday. That was an appeal in connection with the bombing actually taking place in Spain. We, as the House is aware, some few days ago took a certain initiative in that matter, the details of which I think it would be better not to make public at the present moment, but I feel confident that the French Government will certainly join in any wider international endeavour. I would also ask the House to recall that the German Chancellor expressed himself in favour of an endeavour of this kind, and I feel sure that we can in this matter count on his sympathy and support. It is difficult to exaggerate the significance that that support might have. Germany is not only a great Power, perhaps potentially the greatest military Power in Europe, but she is also at the centre of Europe geographically, and, therefore, for her the problem of the future use of the aerial weapon is one of great significance, as it is for us.
At the same time I must not give the House the impression that in making this survey I am ignoring the Government's position, on which the House is entitled to the fullest information. I can now disclose to the House that in point of fact some months ago, obsessed as we were by the significance of developments in this sphere and their potentiality, the Government initiated exhaustive work on this subject by the competent Departments of the State. We thought it necessary to make a very thorough survey before contemplating any initiative or approach to other Governments, because the complexities of this matter are such that it is of little avail to approach others


unless you have yourselves examined the difficulties and know how you are going to meet the very formidable objections that may be raised.
An hon. Member has asked: how are you going to deal with a situation when it is possible in bombing an enemy objective to hit another objective near by? These are the kind of difficulties which have to be faced if any progress is to be made. Therefore I say this survey has been in progress and will be, I hope, finished in the near future. The work is being done by these Departments under the Government's instructions with the express intention of reopening the question with other Powers, and the hon. Member's Motion has given me the opportunity of telling the House of some work which is going on and which but for the Motion would not have been made public for a little while yet. I am not committing myself as to dates or methods, but the House can rest assured that our objective is to get a general international agreement on this subject and that is why this preparatory work is being done.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Is that inquiry limited to the point of bombing, or to the larger point?

Mr. Eden: It is directed to the problem of the development of aerial warfare, particularly in its relation to the bombing of the civilian population. I am sure that all sections of the House, and indeed every hon. Member, will give a welcome to this Motion. Clearly there is no intention on this side of the House of moving any kind of Amendment. On the contrary, we feel it desirable that this should go out to the world as an expression of the opinion of the House. I trust that it will serve once again to call the attention of the world to the difficulties with which we are confronted in this respect. If it does that, this will indeed have been an evening well spent, for in spite of all the discouragements of the modern world, we should not even now under-rate the effect of the moral opinion of the world in supporting movements of this kind.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has more truly expressed the feeling of the House than did the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

There has been in the course of the Debate a striking and remarkable unanimity, for which my hon. Friends are exceedingly grateful. Yet there are certain cases to which I would direct the attention of the House, because they relate not to a mere abstraction or to what might be described as an academic discussion, but to the realities of the situation in certain parts of the world. Whatever we do, let us not regard this as a pious resolution. There is in Spain and in China a desperately grave situation, and there are happening there things which neither this House nor the nation can ignore. It must have occurred to every hon. Member, when listening to the moving references contained in the book from which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) quoted, that the question of bombing from the air, particularly as it affects the civilian population, cannot be regarded by us objectively. We have to consider these references, as I am sure every hon. Member will do, in relation, not to a hypothetical situation, but to one closely connected with world events; in short, what is now happening in Spain and in China may happen in London or any other part of this country.
It is perhaps difficult for some hon. Members to appreciate all the horrors and brutalities which surround bombing from the air and its effect upon a non-combatant population. A few weeks ago there was shown in London a newsreel which depicted the consequences of air bombardment in Shanghai. I did not see that film myself, but I have been informed on reliable authority that people who saw it turned sick with horror. Some of us have recently had the privilege of being in a country seriously affected by air attack, and we have seen wholesale scenes of appalling destruction, where whole areas have been wiped out, a testimony, as I see it—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for this observation—to the folly of non-intervention. I say that because the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) seemed to me to express not only his own feelings but the feelings of other hon. Members when he stated that he was in agreement with the sentiments embodied in the Motion and went on to say that we need not be unduly apprehensive of the effects of air bombardment as long as adequate


defences are provided to protect us. If that be true, surely we ought to have accorded to the Spanish Republican Government all the rights which international law affords to enable them, within the spirit of this Motion, which is unanimously accepted by the House, to provide adequate safeguards for their civilian population.
It is futile for hon. Members to accept these fine sentiments and to express concern for a civilian population which is bravely resisting attack from the air and elsewhere, and at the same time to deny to the Spanish Government the right, which has nothing to do with so-called intervention, of purchasing in cash, out of their ample resources, the necessary weapons with which to protect the civilian population. If the sentiments which are expressed in this Motion are acceptable to hon. Members we cannot regard this Motion as a mere abstraction, as an indication of our opinion, but must be prepared to take the requisite action in order that the civilian population in Northern Spain may be properly protected.
The right hon. Gentleman has made such a conciliatory speech, a speech which does him credit, that I refrain from embarking on any controversial issue, except that I am tempted to say this, that we all appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's pacific intentions, but we cannot dissociate the right hon. Gentleman from the conduct and policy of his own Government. I would not go as far as to say that recent events have disturbed the Government that they are becoming apprehensive of the effect of aerial bombardment, that they are now beginning to turn from mere weapons of defence to the weapons and instruments which international law can provide; but it seems pretty much like a death-bed repentance. All along we have been told in this House—I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not delivered himself occasionally of such observations—that to protect ourselves we could not rely on the League of Nations or the Covenant, or on international agreements such as are asked for in this Motion now accepted by the right hon. Gentleman; that we must have recourse to a large air fleet, to a formidable air arm, capable not so much of defending our population, as of killing off civilian populations in other countries. Indeed that is a policy consistent with the statement

made by Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, on a previous occasion in this House to the effect that we could not adequately protect ourselves against bombing from the air and that we must engage in reprisals. Now the right hon. Gentleman seems to have departed from that philosophy and is more inclined—I say it with the highest respect—to avail himself of the instruments which are, and have been for a long time, embodied in the Covenant, I regard it—and I use my own language—as a kind of death-bed repentance. It is, nevertheless, one for which we are exceedingly grateful.
I have only this to add. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a proper step. But may I ask that these negotiations on which he is about to enter, arising from the survey which the Government, as I understand, are now conducting, will not be unduly protracted; that we shall not have a repetition of those long-drawn-out deliberations of the Non-intervention Committee. We welcome the suggestion, even though it be a bare suggestion, that Germany may be disposed to enter into these negotiations. We would not exclude any nation from the humane task of abolishing air armaments or any form of armaments. But the right hon. Gentleman will forgive hon. Members on this side for being just a trifle suspicious, because of other negotiations which have been unduly prolonged and, as far as we can gather, have come to nothing. We are grateful to the House for accepting the proposal of my hon. Friend. Let us hope that when action is required the right hon. Gentleman will agree with hon. Members on this side that the best form of action possible is that which can be taken through the revival of the League itself working within the terms of the Covenant.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I shall not attempt at this late hour to make any contribution to the general solution of this problem, but I wish to touch on two or three aspects of the matter. I would feel relieved if I were certain that the right hon. Gentleman would keep these in mind during the negotiations upon which he is embarking. I think throughout the country there is a general feeling that the words which have been so frequently quoted and which were uttered by Lord Londonderry in another place, have done immeasurable damage to the good name of this country in those quarters which


favour the abolition of the air weapon. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to-night to do something more than give a general assurance that the policy of the Government in that matter has been altered. I ask him to give some earnest of an intention to repudiate the words which were then uttered. I refer to the case of the bombing of native populations in the Middle East and even on the frontiers of India. Is there anything to prevent the Government saying that as far as that form of bombing is concerned, bombing which is punitive rather than designed to prevent acts of aggression, shall be abandoned. Is there anything to prevent the Government from saying that they have abandoned that form of air warfare for all time? The common feature of all forms of air bombing is that they punish both combatants and the non-combatants, and I feel that it would do something to mitigate the evil impression which has been caused by the statement to which I refer, if the Government announced that only in a case of life and death, and to repel aggression upon the population of this country, would they ever use that air weapon.
There are two other points which I desire to make. Just before the House rose for Christmas I asked the Prime Minister whether he would ascertain the attitude of foreign Powers on the question of the bombing of military objectives situated in the midst of civilian populations. Whatever else may be ascertained in these negotiations, and even should no result accrue from them, we ought to know where we stand on that fundamental question. I suppose I am one of the few Members of the House now who had had the evil misfortune to bomb and to be bombed. Anyone who has experienced the practice of bombing knows that even with the most modern weapons and sights it is practically impossible to obtain such accuracy as to bomb military objectives situated in the midst of civilian populations. Whatever else may be the outcome of these negotiations, I hope it will be made crystal clear that it will be no defence of aerial bombing of civil populations if the aggressor country is able to point to some military or quasi-military objective, such as a power station, or a general post office or a railway station, which happens to be situated in a populous area.
The third and last point which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind and which is perhaps the most important, refers to bacteriological warfare. It is a subject upon which I also questioned the Prime Minister but upon which the right hon. Gentleman was not anxious to communicate any reply. I am aware that it is not specifically referred to in the Motion which the Minister has accepted. Nevertheless, it is comprehended in the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones). It is not only by means of spraying by tanks and other forms of air aggression, including the dropping of bacteria, which is comprehended in the intentions of my hon. Friend it is quite useless to close our eyes to that aspect of the problem, and no one who is well informed upon these matters is ignorant of the fact that experiments at any rate are going on in every country with the defensive intention, no doubt, of protecting themselves against bacteriological warfare.
I would like to feel that the Minister has that problem in mind, and if he turns the spotlight on that aspect of the matter, I think it will strengthen him in his attempt to secure the abolition of this weapon, which for ruthlessness is to be the prize and test of power in future warfare. The mighty are almost as much at the mercy of this weapon as the weak, because provided you have a small nation capable of sending up half-a-dozen aeroplanes equipped by modern mechanical research with bacteria capable of starting the most devastating epidemics, the mightiest nation is at the mercy of the smallest nation. If the right hon. Gentleman will keep the minds of the negotiators on that point, that unless some stop is put to the ruthlessness permissible, the world will one day find itself in a sad plight. There are diseases, as we all know, such as pneumonic plague and bubonic plague, the former with 100 per cent. fatality, which could be dessiminated by a single aeroplane and which nothing known at present to medical science could prevent. Surely that is an argument of some use. I think, no doubt, it is being kept in mind, but if the spotlight of public opinion was turned actively on the immeasurable potentialities of bacteriological warfare in the hands of the weakest of nations, I think that would strengthen the hands of those who wish to bring all forms of air aggression to an end.
Finally, although this has been said before, it is, in my view, futile merely to look upon air bombing as being more ruthless than any other part of war. It is equally dreadful to see a line of men mown down by machine guns as it is to see a civilian population bombed. Furthermore, just as it is illogical to stigmatise one form of warfare as being more ruthless than another, so it is illogical to attempt to prevent warfare until you have eradicated the roots of warfare. I believe that Ministers would be better employed in addressing themselves to those passions, and the causes of those passions, which bring about these operations than to the elimination of the preparations which are an effect but not a cause of our trouble.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the growing horror of aerial bombardment of defenceless civilians should be expressed in an international agreement to co-operate in its prohibition, and urges His Majesty's Government to exert its influane to this end.

CONDITIONS IN THE FAR EAST.

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HANNAH:
That this House thanks the Government for its cautious and temperate treatment of

problems connected with the Far Eastern war.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hannah.

Mr. Hannah: The hour is late, and the matter which I had intended to bring forward is one of great complexity. Therefore, I do not propose to do more than express the shame that I think we all feel that while for many centuries China and Japan got on exceedingly well together, since Europeans found their way out to the East there has been almost constant war. The muezzin, every morning calling the Adzan, is accustomed to say that prayer is better than sleep, but I think I shall express the views of this House most emphatically at the present time if I declare that sleep will be better than further discussion of international affairs.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Dugdale.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.